For those who questioned Obama's support of Israel...

For those who questioned Obama's support of Israel...can you at least agree that he's doing the right think NOW?!
“If we are serious about wanting to resolve this situation,” Obama said. “It starts with no more missiles fired into Israel’s territory.
”Obama Says U.S. ‘Fully Supportive’ of Israel Defense Rights

Go get em boys (and ladies!) and stay safe!

U.S. Backs Israel on Gaza-including use of ground forces

NPR, LA Times, and the British Foreign Secretary all reporting that Israel's actions are in response to Hamas' rockets. 
I think I just saw a pig fly out my window!

To paraphrase The West Wing:

To paraphrase The West Wing: 'Let the word ring forth from this time and this place, you kill an Israeli, any Israeli, we don't come back with a proportional response, we come back with total disaster!'

Can the talking heads please stop yelling "fiscal cliff"?

Can the talking heads please stop yelling "fiscal cliff"? It is completely uninformative and misleading. A 'cliff' implies that we crash. We won't crash. We will contract, i.e. another recession. 
Let's use another name for it that's more understandable, informative and precise. How about "Austerity Deadline" - If a deal cannot be reached on our deficit by the deadline then austerity measures will be put in place. 
Enough of the hyperbole!

Can you believe the Tea Party? They believe Romney wasn't conservative enough and that's why they lost. 
I was seriously hoping that one of the benefits of this election would be that the extreme right wing of the Republican party would get flushed down the toilet and the REAL Republicans would make a comeback.

http://ttpmail.theteaparty.net/webmail/16542/236022482/9461d1053de9fe1af0785fa01083a270

Final Debate: A Response to David Mamet's "A Note To A Stiff Necked People"

This post was just really a response by me to Daniel Barenholtz who recommended this article on Facebook written by David Mamet: A note to a stiff-necked people

Jonathan ZuckerTo paraphrase you, Donny, I have been accused of leaning a little liberal in my time. The article by Mamet is hopelessly one sided, misleading, incomplete and unfair.
I will never aceed to some people's belief that one party is good for Israel while another is bad. It's an inherently dangerous position to put Israel in considering that, thankfully, no party will eternally hold power. It's a very short sighted view of our future and shows an even shorter term memory of each party's past. Basically it puts Israel in danger.
As an Israeli, I believe we can both be secure that Israel will not be thrown under the bus by either Romney or Obama.
As a Jew, with our history of persecution and permanent minority status everywhere outside of Israel (and NY), it behooves us to stand up for those who need help.
It's in our own interest to always be diligent and fight persecution and discrimination. It is an honorable and supremely Jewish trait that we don't slam the door behind us after we've climbed the ladder of success.
Regarding that article, Obama is no more a socialist than Reagan was. This scurrilous accusation is simply used as hyperbole to damage, demean and undermine Obama while at the same time divide Americans.
I've sat down with my kids and taught them to have an open mind. I've taught them why I have voted the way I have and that there are those who disagree with me and voted the other way. No matter what though, I have taught them that it is never right to debase, defame or denigrate someone who disagrees with you.
THAT is what makes America great.
Unfortunately, I have found that many people have really forgotten that lesson and I fear we will continue to find this country tearing itself apart at the seams.
Monday at 5:21pm

Israel's Settlements: Construction Of 1,200 Settler Homes To Move Ahead

Israel's very existence is incendiary according to Arabs. Israel inflames, incites and enrages the Palestinians just by their very being. That is why Israel is the only country in the world that builds an apartment building and it ends up being an international incident. The 22 Arab countries, along with Iran and many others, vote as a block against Israel regardless of the issue or validity (not unlike the way Republicans will vote as a block regardless of the issues' validity).

Give me a break people. If you are unfamiliar with the geography and topography of Israel then please refrain from commenting until you've educated yourself. These are not, by any sane person's logic, inflammatory apartment buildings. No one claims that this territory will end up as part of a future Palestinian country. No one. The Palestinians have no reason here to criticize, denounce or protest.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Hurricane Sandy, Romney, Today's Republicans and a lot of word vomit

The header is self explanatory....you'll see what I mean. Read on. Sorry Joey!

 

  

Jonathan Zucker

October 30th 2012

I wonder if Romney is for spending money and increasing our deficit (which our kids will have to pay back to China), in order to clean up this mess (Hurricane Sandy) or if he's, instead, for austerity and cuts to programs to pay for it.
Don't think it's the same as the '08 economic collapse? You're right. One was caused by an over leveraged financial market and the other was caused by weather.
N

either was caused by government over spending.
How are they similar now? They're two messes that need to be cleaned up. The fundamental question is how do you pay for it. Do you use deficit spending (FEMA, federal assistance dollars....) and then grow the economy to pay for that spending or do you cut government spending (no government assistance since Romney called for privatizing FEMA during the primaries), further depressing the economy and then hoping it gets cleaned up by the private sector?
Hmmmm. Funny how Republicans say they want a smaller government....until there's a problem and they need help.

D.j. Ledina and Nathan Zucker like this.

Joey Folkman Republicans dont believe in no govt, they just believe in limited government. Government should be available for circumstances such as this, where there really is no effective way for private enterprise to fix municipal infrastructure.

Tuesday at 6:51pm 

Joey Folkman Government, however, does need to intervene in those things that CAN be fixed by private spending. For example, raising taxes to pay for govt programs that are created solely to create temporary jobs makes no sense if that same money would remain in the hands of the taxpayer and used by them to create sustainable commerce.

Tuesday at 6:53pm 

Jonathan Zucker Thank God a voice of sanity! Hi Joey. I completely agree. I don't believe that any sane politician professes to be in favor of big government. Those days are long gone. We need to keep taxes as low as possible in order to maintain a government that our society demands.
However, that said, today's Republicans have totally abdicated any claim that they used to have (when we were growing up) to being financially responsible. When in power they continued to pretend that trickle down economics works in spite of 30 years of proof that it does not. That doesn't mean that we need high tax rates, we don't. It just means that trickle down, i.e. the belief that if the rich get richer, then the middle class and the poor will benefit as well, has been debunked. The rich have gotten richer while the rest of society has seen their wages stagnate and the divide between the rich and the rest of society has grown to levels not seen since the Great Depression. Trickle down is a proven failure.
While in power under Bush '43, Republicans continued to spend like it was going out of style and cut taxes thinking that it would all balance out. I guess they didn't learn the econ 101 principal of diminishing returns. Of course we don't want to go back to 90% rates like under Eisenhower but we also can't cut taxes so far and think that it will always have a stimulative effect and increase government revenues. They knew that and still didn't care. Cheyney mocked financial responsibility with his famous quote that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter". Reagan increased taxes when he realized that he took the tax cutting too far. He would be considered a RINO today. Today's Republicans are fiscal frauds.
Republicans call for doing away with Social Security (Bush wanted private accounts as does Ryan), privatizing FEMA (Romney called for that during the primaries) and basically doing away with the social safety net which they describe as a "hammock". Yes, there are people who game the system but the exceptions to the rule do not invalidate the rule. No, I'm not naive. But I'm also not cynical enough to believe that anything other than a small minority of the 4,300,000 people on welfare, who need it and are trying to get off it, are simply out to lay in their hammocks.
In times of crises, like 2008 or today with Hurricane Sandy, we need the government to play a part. In the first example they needed to provide demand where there was none in order to avoid an economic spiral leading to collapse. In the second example they need to provide disaster relief to everyone effected and not just to the highest bidder which would happen if a job like FEMA's (or the cops or firefighters for example) were privatized. Instead of recognizing these clear facts, Republicans assert that government is always the problem. These morons always like to claim they're for small government. Until, that is, something really bad happens and everyone demands a federal response.
Can you imagine what would have happened in 2008 if the feds simply said "we have nothing to do with it..."?! There would be blood in the streets of DC.
The feds weren't the cause of the economic collapse of 2008. I'm in finance. I'm in fixed income and traded CDOs and know a thing about hedging with CDS. I KNOW what caused the collapse as well as everyone else in finance. It's a joke and the game is still being played with Republicans claiming that government regulation needs to get out of the way. IN FINANCE!!
This hurricane is another example of Republicans professing to hate the Feds but then demanding their assistance in the next breadth.
I just can't stand it anymore. Their hypocrisy is astounding. They hate handouts but don't see a tax loophole geared to the fractional 1% (carried interest) as a problem. The ultra rich paying 10-15% taxes isn't a problem when the middle pays over double. America used to be known for economic mobility. It was supposed to be a meritocracy. If you worked hard you would do well and could move up. If you were a lazy bum then you would be a bum. But today the U.S. stands dead last out of the top ten economies (PEW Research) in economic mobility. That's a travesty.
Don't even get me started on the religious crazies that have kidnapped the party.
When I was in school as a kid I was a "Michael P. Keaton" Republican. To paraphrase Reagan, I didn't leave the Republican party. They left me.

Tuesday at 10:53pm 

 

Jonathan Zucker ok. holy shit I just realized how much I rambled on. I guess I needed to vent. Sorry!

Tuesday at 10:54pm

Debate of the Paranoid Kind

It seems surreal these days to debate with people who say the sky is red and the earth is flat but unfortunately that's what many debates have been reduced to these days.
Since this "debate" was done via email and not public, I will not publish the other persons full name.

ML- October 16th.:

Criticism Mounts Over State Envoy

Jewish leaders slam appointment of anti-Israel envoy to OSCE conference

Jewish leaders expressed outrage Friday over the State Department’s praise for, and defense of, a controversial Muslim leader who has defended terrorist groups and suggested that Israel may have been responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Salam al-Marayati, founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), was picked to represent the United States government at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s (OSCE) annual 10-day human rights conference, the Human Dimension Implementation Meetings (HDIM).   Al-Marayati’s well-known anti-Israel bona fides prompted Jewish leaders and others to express outrage over the Obama administration’s selection.  “It is regrettable that someone with such distorted, conspiratorial views—even with a lackluster apology—is delegated by our government to represent our country abroad,” the Anti-Defamation League said in a statement to the Free Beacon.

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, argued that the State Department is showing inconsistency by touting an individual who has defended the militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which are designated by the U.S. as terrorist organizations.

“One would assume that individuals selected to represent the United States at an international human rights conclave would share our government’s longstanding policy that Hamas and Hezbollah are dangerous terrorist organizations,” Cooper told the Free Beacon. “But Mr. Salam al-Marayati and his organization are long-time advocates that these deadly terror groups be removed from the U.S. terrorist list.”

“With terrorism continuing to roil the Middle East,” Cooper added, “the question is why the U.S. State Department would say he is ‘highly credible’?”

Josh Block, a former Clinton administration official who now serves as CEO of The Israel Project, said the State Department’s defense of al-Marayati lacks credibility.  “That statement, defending a person who is clearly a terrorist sympathizer and deeply hostile to Israel, calls into question the credibility of the person who gave it, and it raises a very serious question: What exactly is the U.S. government saying here?” Block asked.

“It is inexplicable and deeply concerning that a person who has suggested Israel was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and advocated for terrorist organizations including Hamas and Hezbollah, which has killed more Americans than any terrorist group except al Qaeda, would be described as ‘valued’ and ‘highly credible’ by our government,” Block said.

The State Department, however, defended  al-Marayati’s participation, calling him “valued and highly credible.”

“Mr. al-Marayati has been involved in U.S. government initiatives for almost 10 years and has been a valued and highly credible interlocutor on issues affecting Muslim communities,” a spokesman for the U.S. Mission to the OSCE told the Free Beacon Thursday in a statement. “He was invited to participate in this year’s HDIM as a reflection of the wide diversity of backgrounds of the American people.”

Al-Marayati was criticized by pro-Israel leaders when he recommended that the U.S. “put the state of Israel on the [9/11] suspect list,” according to the New York Times.

“If we’re going to look at suspects, we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list because I think this diverts attention from what’s happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies,” al-Marayati told a radio host, according to the Times.

The U.S. Embassies in Poland and Brussels had commended al-Marayati’s participation in the human rights forum, according to statements on their respective websites.

MPAC, the organization al-Marayati helped create, has been condemned by Jewish groups for promoting false articles claiming that Israel harvests Palestinian organs, the latest iteration of a centuries-old anti-Semitic blood libel.

  

Me October 17th:

Wow! You have me and Levi together. I'm flattered. THE two liberals (I don't mean to speak for you Levi) at YIH! LOL
OK I can't defend the State Dept. for this selection. al-Marayati is not someone that I, or anyone else in our circles would obviously have chosen.

That being said, you mentioned that this was the straw that broke the camel's back regarding Obama. Really? Be honest. Do you honestly think Obama had ANY involvement in this selection? An envoy to an OSCE conference is not exactly an appointment to the Supreme Court. Come on!

Does the buck stop with the Commander in Chief? Yes. But lets keep the hyperbole in check and at least admit that its a dubious claim that Obama had anything to do with this selection other than having some stupid underlings. Six degrees of separation is not an indictment of one's beliefs. 

This was a State Department selection. I grew up with Carter, Reagan, Bush...and have always found in my own research/learning that the State Department has never been a friend of Israel. The State Department, under Republican and Democratic administrations alike has always acted like a French organization within the U.S. government, whoring themselves out to the highest bidder, repeatedly to Israel's detriment. 

If you still think Obama was intimately involved in this selection to an almost unheard of conference (yes, at least by me. hahah walked into that one), then what did you think when President Bush was bowing to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia? You must have been really pissed when he was walking and holding hands with him. You must have been apoplectic when he kissed him! 

In true Democratic form, I will criticize the left or right when I see an injustice. I see the Republican's 11th commandment (thou shall not speak ill of another Republican), made famous but not authored by Reagan (everyone makes that mistake) as totally immoral. It reeks of, and breeds, hypocrisy, inconsistency, apathy and ignorance.  

I always do my best to be consistent in my criticisms of politicians and my political beliefs in particular. I can't tolerate hypocrisy or cherry picking of information in order to make a point. The former reveals ones stupidity and the latter insults the intelligence of the other debater.  I understand how politics works and therefore agree with the Rolling Stones - You Can't Always Get What You Want! There's no reason for me to believe that Obama was involved in this selection or got what he wanted with al-Marayati's selection.

That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Me - October 17th continued:

lol. I'm a Dennis Miller fan. Or at least I was one. I should have started off with "now I don't want to get off on a rant here but..."

You gave me the camel line about a week ago in shul regarding the al-Marayati selection. Oh well. 2009, 2012. Out is out.

Does that mean you voted for Obama over McCain in 2008? I thought you said you were a social conservative.

ML - October 17th

Sorry, you are mixing up Obama's Islamists…

I gave you that line about Arif Alikhanas, the Hezbolah sympathizer that Obama appointed to Homeland Security.

I just learned about al-Marayati yesterday.

Please get your Obama Muslim Extremist appointments straight!!!!!!!!!!!!  I understand its tough, with so many of them.  

Me - October 17th

oh right! I knew something sounded wrong. I did remember you said something about DHS. Well regarding that appointment, as I said in shul I don't ascribe to guilt by association. I've done a little looking around and I can't find many quotes directly from him vis-a-vis Israel or Hizbollah or Palestinians. So it appears to me that this is just slamming Obama for appointing a Muslim.
http://factcheck.org/2010/11/muslims-appointed-to-homeland-security/

I'm no Islamic sympathizer but I would say the fact that someone is a Muslim does not in and of itself make them dangerous. Even Bush '43 says so, so it must be true! LOL!! Here's a speech he gave right after 9/11 (I'm sure you felt the same way I did when this happened)
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/17/gen.bush.muslim.trans/

ML - October 17th

Arif Alikhanas called Hezbolah a Liberation Movement.    Hezbolah is on our state department terror lists.  They kidnap and kill Israelis.

I don't need any more information than that.

Thank you for clarifying that you are not an Islamic Sympathizer.

By the way, Obama said "Jerk Around" and "Gangbang" last night.   

Me - October 17th

If that were true then we would have a real problem. Unfortunately he didn't. Here's the long and short of it. Hearsay begat hearsay and finally was denied by Alikhanas himself. In fact he has unequivocally called Hezbollah a "terrorist organization". That's not a statement from someone who heard him say that. Those are his own words.

"That aside, though, and the two years of reports notwithstanding, I am delighted to be able to report that Arif Alikhan has publicly, clearly and unequivocally called Hezbollah exactly what it is, a terrorist organization. I applaud him for doing so, and I wish more American Muslim leaders would follow his lead on that score."

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/271019/obama-official-denies-calling-hezbollah-liberation-movement-says-it-terrorist-organiza

I hope that clears that up. 

On the other topic...ok wait. now you're against gangbangs?!?! You're going too far!! 

ML - October 17th

I'm enjoying the Zucker Spin Zone.

Me - October 17th

do i take that to mean that you stand corrected?  ;) 

ML - October 17th

No, take that to mean that the Obama adminstration appointed a Hezbollah sympathizer (who later "recanted"),  and a radical Islamist who blamed Israel for 9/11… and you are spinning it as no big deal.

I think it’s a HUGE deal.

 

Me - October 17th

I've sent you articles and statements that back up my "claim". Where can you show me anything about Alikhanas being a Hezbollah sympathizer that's anything more than hearsay?Regarding al-Marayati, I agreed that he was a poor selection. I do admit when bad choices are made. But you haven't answered me as to whether you think his selection was done by Obama.

This is a no spin zone. (thought you would appreciate that.... you know, make you feel at home on O'Reilly's couch)

ML - October 18th

Dear Mr. Zucker (note my formality):

We obviously see this situation very differently.   Al-Marayati… No Obama did not personally pick him, but his department did.   The hire reflects either 1) a lack of procedures to properly vet a candidate, or 2) a hire that was in compliance with their vetting system (which is more troubling).    The Alikhanas statement about Hezbollah being a Liberation movement is well known (of course not in MSNBC circles).  I'm sure if I dug deeply, I could find the actual transcript.   Even if its hearsay, that's enough for me (in court, people are convicted on hearsay alone).

Both these situations are two examples in a long line of Obama's Pro-Arab affiliations, mentoring, statements, associations, policies, and speeches.  I could go one by one, but I'm not going to convince you.  Obama even charged NASA with the responsibility of "muslim outreach".  NASA?

As the liberals say, let's agree to disagree.     In the meantime, enjoy this SNL poke at both sides….

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/obama-visits-biden-cold-open/1401439 

Me - October 18th

okaaaayyy.....

Not sure what to make of the "Mr. Zucker" thing. I reserve formality for people that are acquaintances or people at work that I don't really know at all. Am I not getting some Republican humor? We still good?

Re: Al-Marayati, I'll take what's behind door number 1, Bob. That was my point! They fucked up and I AGREE with you (enjoy it!). Al-Marayati was a terrible pick that, I believe, had zero input from the President.

Re: Alikhanas, I challenge you to find the (or any) transcript where he calls Hezbollah a liberation movement. If you find it then I will admit I was wrong. If you can't then I hope you will stop using this as a reason why you don't like Obama and admit that I am right. I'm sure you have many other, much more legitimate, reasons why you hate Obama.

I do not debate in order to be a pain in the ass, even though you may think I am. I do it because I enjoy it and to find the truth. Believe me. Some things you'll find out about me; I hate hypocrisy, I'm consistent and I don't lie. Also, I would never use MSNBC in a debate with you any more than, I would hope, you wouldn't use FOX as a source for your argument with me. You can see who I used. I always sited my sources.

BTW Hearsay shouldn't be enough for you. If one person were to start a rumor and the rumor spread, that doesn't make it true. And no one is legally convicted on hearsay. That's bullshit and you know it. Haven't you ever heard the line "Objection your Honor; hearsay"? Hearsay is is not allowed in a court of law. We have many lawyers in shul. I'm sure they'll verify that.

Turn on CSPAN (WOW that sounds nerdy!!) It's the Al Smith Dinner. Past ones have been very funny.
http://www.c-span.org/Campaign2012/Events/67th-Annual-Alfred-E-Smith-Memorial-Foundation-Dinner/10737435020/

Have a good night.

ML - October 18th

Mr. Zucker, of course we are all good!   I love debating politics, even when I'm 100% right and my opponent is 100% wrong.   Its good sport.   Like hunting deer with an AK-47.   Lopsided but fun.

I hope NASA is successful in both its mission back to the moon and its engagement with Muslims.

You really need to grow the beard back, btw.  Your leftist arguments sounded stronger w/ beard.

I will bookmark the Alikhanas transcript search until I have the bandwidth to waste time. 

Good Shabbos!

M.

P.S.  I took a close look at Obama's "vaunted" 18 tax cuts for small business.   They are all BS.   My 25 employee benefit from ZERO of the 18..   Just saying…

 

Me - October 18th

I will never understand why Republicans can never admit when they're wrong. I've shown you you're wrong on Alikhanas and you still won't admit the sky is blue. Here it is. Straight from the horses mouth saying "Hezbollah is a terrorist organization". No mincing words. No 'I don't agree with them', 'they do some good things'.... No hedging. Just plain English. He says they are terrorist plain and simple and you still hold on to your story that's based on nothing but hearsay. Come on man!!

Funny how you now bring up a different subject though, NASA. I'll admit I'm not a fan of NASA even though my brother went to space camp, went to space shuttle launchings, lives and breaths the shit. I was for killing the shuttle programs and was actually supportive of Bush's decision to kill it.

However, now I'm going to ask that you be consistent and not hypocritical. NASA's engagement with Muslims did not start with Obama. It started with your holy savior (no not Hashem), Ronald Reagan! Careful not to get too angry here. I can back it up. I found a source for you that, by your standards, should be unimpeachable. Debbie Schlussel herself!!

Reagan/Bush Used NASA for Muslim Outreach Before Obama

LOL!!! I will say here and now that the idea is stupid and worthless and Obama is a schmuck to put a dollar into it. I hope you will now admit that Obama was not the first to attempt this same worthless and stupid endeavor.
Remember, consistent and not hypocritical.

Sorry your employees didn't benefit from any of the small business tax breaks.

ML - October 18th

Jon, I'm totally kidding about me being right 100% of the time and you being wrong 0% of the time.  Its really more like 97% / 3%.  C'mon, my liberalish friend!  I'm starting to think you are GOP and just busting my chops.

BTW, when I was a Democrat I never admitted I was wrong either.

As I said, I will bookmark the Alikhanas until I can research fully.   He wouldn't be the first person to pull a 180 lie.   Debra Wasserman Schultz just pulled a doozy herself (re: Michael Oren). 

I stand 50% corrected on the Obama Nasa Muslim story.    In 1985, there actually was a Muslim astronaut.   That's not random outreach.  50% MAX!

See you at the 10 AM Minyan on Shabbos!

Me - October 18th

lol. I'll be there.

Who Threw Israel Under The Bus Debate

Below is a debate about a common Mitt Romney shot that Obama has thrown Israel under the bus. I've added two links that I did not add to my Facebook debates but make my point perfectly. The first link is from the Council on Foreign Relations and the second is from Commentary Magazine's Jonathan Tobin a regular on conservative news outlets like Fox.

http://blogs.cfr.org/cook/2012/10/03/the-u-s-israel-relationship-whats-love-got-to-do-with-it/

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/24/whos-been-pressuring-israel-both-parties/

Jonathan Zucker shared a link.

October 24

A cousin of mine in Israel posted this. It deserves a read.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Israel must not be made into a partisan issue. I'm only posting this in response to the numerous, supposedly Israeli supporters, who claim that Republicans are good for Israel and Democrats are not.

Who Threw Israel Under the Bus?

www.nytimes.com

Whenever the United States has put serious, sustained pressure on Israel’s leaders, it has come from Republican presidents, not Democrats.

You and Yoel Moskowitz like this.

Alex Hochberger Unfair defense, while it's true that no Democratic President has ever strong armed Israel, it's also true that no Democratic President has ever strong armed anyone!

October 24 at 11:11am 

Jonathan Zucker haha... very funny. However, I wonder if Osama bin Laden would agree. BAM!

October 24 at 11:19am 

Ronnit Feiler I'm sure your cousin is a very nice person as I know you are. But the article is trying too hard to manipulate with facts that in no way change the reality. Whatever old facts we dig up will not change the current truth which is that Obama is in no-way a friend of Israel. If Americans want to vote democrat because they believe in good-old American democratic ideals, and feel that they are good for America, they should by all means do so. But trying to pretend that they are voting for Obama to help Israel is just wrong.

October 24 at 11:25am 

Jonathan Zucker Hi Ronnit- I will not argue that Obama and Netanyahu are buddy buddy. I know many fellow Likudniks who also think Netanyahu is an insufferable prick. But that's besides the point.
I am curious as to why you think that Obama has not been good for Israel.

October 24 at 11:31am 

Alex Hochberger In terms of "get level" getting Israel, just listen to Obama's words at the Debate. Romney went to Israel, fundraisers and all, part of a major campaign. Israel is a part of the First world, a wealthy and important ally to Governor Romney. Senator Obama visited Israel and went to the Holocaust Museum. To President Obama, Israel is about dead Jews and past evil, not a major wealthy and important middle east ally.

In terms of policy, there isn't a huge gulf, Obama's been fine on the policy side with Israel. But like his "more flexibility" comment to Russia, there is a concern that in a second term, Obama will line up more with the anti-Israel left.

Also, the rhetoric from the Administration makes it hard on Israel. The Palestinians listen to the rhetoric and think they have a friend, which takes the pressure off them to cut a deal. When they think time is on their side, they don't negotiation. Also, Obama's "stop settlement" pre-conditiion screwed it up, no PA leader can be more Dovish than the US President, so when Israel said no, the Palestinians were screwed.

Obama's been fine for Israel, but awful for dealing with the PA issue.

October 24 at 11:41am 

Jonathan Zucker " To President Obama, Israel is about dead Jews and past evil, not a major wealthy and important middle east ally." OK I have to assume you're just trying to get a rise out of me because that is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
That said, I'm glad you agree that Obama has been fine regarding Israel. Yes, he made an early attempt and quickly realized that now is not the time. If Arafat couldn't get himself to do it, the current lack of leadership certainly means they won't do a damn thing.

October 24 at 11:52am

Round two with Avner B. regarding the press

Avner Bezborodko

September 12 at 2:07pm ·

The press asked Romney the following questions this morning. Only the last even touches on what he might do as President. Pres. Obama in the meantime hasn't answered this many questions in the last few months put together. We need to vote a Republican into office if only so the press to do their job and actually report on our government!

1. Reporter brings up that Romney had a “toughly worded statement last night,” and asks, “Do you regret the tone at all given what we know now?”

2. “Do you think, though, coming so soon after the events really had unfolded over night was appropriate, to be weighing in on this as this crisis was unfolding in real time?” Follow-up: “What did the White House do wrong then, Gov. Romney, if they put out a statement saying they disagreed with it?”

3. “The world is watching. Isn’t this itself a mixed signal when you criticize the administration at a time that Americans are being killed? Shouldn’t politics stop for this?”

4. “Some people have said that you jumped the gun a little bit in putting that statement out last night and that you should have waited until more details were available. Do you regret having that statement come out so early before we learned about all of the things that were happening?”

5. “If you had known last night that the ambassador had died, and obviously, I’m gathering you did not know . . . if you had known that the ambassador had died, would you have issued such a strongly-issued statement?”

6. Reporter comments that Romney is running on his “economic know-how and private sector experience,” and adds, “but now that foreign policy and the situation in the Middle East has been thrust into the presidential campaign, can you talk about why specifically you think you are better qualified than President Obama to handle these issues?”

7. “How specifically, Governor Romney, would a President Romney have handled this situation differently than President Obama did? You spoke out before midnight, when all the facts weren’t known. How would you have handled this differently than the president did?”

Avner Bezborodko I should add that the president went to Vegas today. Had Bush (or even Romney, who is not part of government) done this they would have been excoriated.

September 12 at 2:08pm

Jonathan Zucker did the press to do their job and actually report on our government when Bush '43 was president? Had they done their job then, we might have been able to avoid the mistake of Iraq. (Who knows. He might have instead made the correct move and kept on heading east towards Iran - the real backers of terrorism)
Too bad the press has completely lost its way (regardless of which party is in the WH) and has become 'stenographers' instead of fact checkers and informers of the public.

September 13 at 11:36am

Jonathan Zucker btw, a campaign event, regardless of location, is nothing to be critical of. Should people be upset b/c the president is now in CO?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/schedule/president/2012-09-13

President's Schedule - September 13, 2012 | The White House

www.whitehouse.gov

September 13 at 11:37am

Avner Bezborodko Jon, Is it really your claim that the press was not doing its' job in being vigilant and critical of GWB?

September 13 at 12:33pm 

Jonathan Zucker Yes.

September 13 at 1:18pm 

Jonathan Zucker Let me be more specific. It was cowed by Bush '43s administration. They were afraid of being labeled unpatriotic by questioning the administrations actions, specifically with Iraq.

September 13 at 1:20pm 

Avner Bezborodko "Here I provide a summary of each chapter, and then detail how the mainstream media failed Americans with its coverage of the War on Terror. You get a side-by-side look at the themes and frames used by president and press for each speech. Additionally, I detail how the media bias worked, what it looked like, and how the press operated as an anti-democratic institution. After reading this chapter, not only will you know what the press has done to diminish America’s options for fighting the War on Terror, you will also see how it continues to do this even today."
From "Bush's War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age"

Ah, you say, someone who did an analysis of what you just pointed out. But here is the result:
"What I found was stunning.

Chapter two looks at several of the president's speeches following 9/11, and then looks at the press responses. Of note here is that the press, represented throughout the book by The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, ABC News, CBS News, and NBC News, echoed the president’s themes and the framing of those themes. In short, there was some accurate reporting going on here during this time period. Echoing does not mean that alternative points of views were not presented – they were. It just means that the president’s major ideas were being presented to the American public with little filtering.

Chapter three takes a look at the president’s November 2001 speech to the United Nations. This speech was delivered just about eight weeks after 9/11, and within that short period of time the press had turned, and was actually framing Bush as an enemy, right along side the terrorists. Additionally, the press was now ignoring major themes relayed by President Bush, such as the evil nature of the terrorist enemy.

Chapter four details the State of the Union Address of January 2002. One of the main findings here is that by January 2002 the press was actively ignoring important parts of the president's speeches, setting its own agenda, and attempting to make economic concerns of more importance than National Security.

Chapter five looks at the president’s speech that was made on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003. Anyone recall what the president said? How about the jet landing? The president focused on congratulating the troops and describing the next phase of the War on Terror. The press went into a meltdown, calling the president "Top Gun Bush," and insisting that the economy would play a major role in election 2004.

Chapter six takes a look at another speech to the United Nations, this one in September 2003. By this time the press had completely turned on the president. This chapter, to an even greater degree than the others, shows the power of comparing the speech of the president to the press coverage that follows. One wonders if the press actually listened to the president’s speech at all, or if they wrote their storylines the day before.

Although each chapter looks at important speeches, chapter seven examines one of particular interest, the president’s November 2005 commemoration of Veteran’s Day. This is the speech the president gave when he first publicly attacked his Democrat critics over their remarks on the War on Terror. Importantly, the president also laid out his administration's specific plans for Iraq and the War on Terror in this speech. Nobody would know this unless they actually listened to or read the president’s speech, since the press failed to mention that portion of the speech – almost 4/5ths of the total speech. Amazingly, in the coverage that followed this speech, the press demanded the very information on the War on Terror that the president had detailed in his speech."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/kuypers1.html

Media Bias and Bush’s War on Terror by Jim A. Kuypers

www.lewrockwell.com

Jim A. Kuypers, Ph.D., [send him mail] teaches political communi

cation at Virginia Tech. He is the author of Presidential Crisis Rhetoric in the Post Cold War and Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues.

September 13 at 1:46pm 

Avner Bezborodko I do welcome citations that prove your theory that the press blithely let Bush lead us into a war.

September 13 at 1:49pm 

Jonathan Zucker "The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." --Thomas Jefferson
Unfortunately, the following quote seems to be prophetic: "A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself." - Joseph Pulitzer
I don't want to give you with a chapter by chapter synopsis here of a book about the selling of the Iraq war but I'm sure that once you take a look you'll recognize that the source is quite possibly the best source possible on how the Bush White House sold this war to an unsuspecting press.
It's a stinging rebuke from none other than the former Press Secretary of President George W. Bush, Scott McClellan.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/27/AR2008052703679.html
I hope you welcome the citation. I do believe this proves my theory that the press blithely let Bush lead us into a war. Perhaps you will not blame the press but would instead blame Bush and his administration for purposely misleading the press. Perhaps.

Ex-Press Aide Writes That Bush Misled U.S. on Iraq

www.washingtonpost.com

Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan writes in a new memoir that t...See More

September 13 at 2:29pm 

Avner Bezborodko I will never critique a book when I can get Christopher Hitchens to do it for me.

"If you want to read a serious book about the origins and consequences of the intervention in Iraq in 2003, you owe it to yourself to get hold of a copy of Douglas Feith's War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism. As undersecretary of defense for policy, Feith was one of those most intimately involved in the argument about whether to and, if so, how to put an end to the regime of Saddam Hussein. His book contains notes made in real time at the National Security Council, a trove of declassified documentation, and a thoroughly well-organized catalog of sources and papers and memos....

...will make it difficult if not impossible for people to go on claiming that, for instance:

There was no rational reason to suspect a continuing Iraqi WMD threat. Feith's citations from the Duelfer Report alone are stunning in their implications.

That alternatives to war were never discussed and that the administration was out to "get" Saddam Hussein from the start.

That the advocates of regime change hoped and indeed planned to anoint Ahmad Chalabi as a figurehead leader in Baghdad.

That there was no consideration given to postwar planning. "
Christopher Hitchens
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2008/06/a_tale_of_two_tellalls.html

If you want to read a serious book about the intervention in Iraq, try War and Decision.

www.slate.com

When Bush's Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill defected from the Cabinet in 2002 an

d Ron Suskind told O'Neill's story of being surrounded by fools, Michael Kinsley observed that the president deserved all he got from the book. Anyone dumb enough to hire a fool like O'Neill in the first place ought...

September 13 at 3:07pm

Avner Bezborodko More from Hitch about McClellan and the benefits of this book to the anti-war movement:

"Anyone dumb enough to hire a fool like O'Neill in the first place ought to have known what to expect. So it goes with the ludicrous figure of Scott McClellan. I used to watch this mooncalf blunder his way through press conferences and think, Exactly where do we find such men? For the job of swabbing out the White House stables, yes. But for any task involving the weighing of words? Hah! Now it seems that he realizes, and with a shock at that, that there was a certain amount of "spin" or propaganda involved in his job description. Well, give the man a cigar. Beyond that, the book is effectively valueless to the anti-war camp since, as McClellan says of the president, "I consider him a fundamentally decent person, and I do not believe he or his White House deliberately or consciously sought to deceive the American people."

September 13 at 3:10pm

Jonathan Zucker I'll agree with Hitchens (as much as I hate to say so - he was so horribly anti-Israel) that those who Bush hired were morons but then again so was their boss. (BTW - I also read Ron Suskind's book. O'Neill may have been a bad treasury secretary but his accounts of what happened in the WH was corroborated by other insiders like McClellan. They may be boobs but no one has called them liars.)
I still believe what has been accepted as common knowledge that the press dropped the ball under Bush '43.

September 13 at 4:24pm