Commentary Magazine


Posts For: August 9, 2008

Re: What More Do You Need To Know?

The situation in Georgia is serious. The U.S. and the West are being tested: will we defend an ally and check Russian ambitions in the Caucasus?

On the political front, Georgia may in fact be the “3 a.m. moment.” And the candidates’ reactions are telling. As Abe pointed out, McCain’s reaction was swift, specific and unequivacal: the international community won’t tolerate the invasion of a sovereign state. Obama’s best effort is to suggest “calm” and go on vacation. No words on the matter from His actual lips. Contrary to the linked article, Obama’s initial limp comment is not in keeping with the White House’s position –President Bush has definitively told Russia to cease the attack. It is instructive that Obama takes such a ho-hum attitude to the invasion of a U.S. ally. You don’t have to be a partisan to see how serious the situation is and how inadequate Obama’s response is.

So what is ahead? Just as Iran went from being a “tiny” country and no real threat in The One’s mind to a serious and grave one, I see a flip-flop coming on this issue. I’m sure the Winnie-the-Pooh fellow and the rest of the 299 are thinking hard. Unfortunately, a candidate’s — or a president’s — first reaction to an international crisis is often critical and always telling.

UPDATE: Well, as predicted, Obama tries to straighten out his position on Georgia. (But not before his campaign gets caught spouting Russian talking points. So much for “nuance.” ) Only one of the candidates has been up on the details of the crisis and specific on the required action.

The situation in Georgia is serious. The U.S. and the West are being tested: will we defend an ally and check Russian ambitions in the Caucasus?

On the political front, Georgia may in fact be the “3 a.m. moment.” And the candidates’ reactions are telling. As Abe pointed out, McCain’s reaction was swift, specific and unequivacal: the international community won’t tolerate the invasion of a sovereign state. Obama’s best effort is to suggest “calm” and go on vacation. No words on the matter from His actual lips. Contrary to the linked article, Obama’s initial limp comment is not in keeping with the White House’s position –President Bush has definitively told Russia to cease the attack. It is instructive that Obama takes such a ho-hum attitude to the invasion of a U.S. ally. You don’t have to be a partisan to see how serious the situation is and how inadequate Obama’s response is.

So what is ahead? Just as Iran went from being a “tiny” country and no real threat in The One’s mind to a serious and grave one, I see a flip-flop coming on this issue. I’m sure the Winnie-the-Pooh fellow and the rest of the 299 are thinking hard. Unfortunately, a candidate’s — or a president’s — first reaction to an international crisis is often critical and always telling.

UPDATE: Well, as predicted, Obama tries to straighten out his position on Georgia. (But not before his campaign gets caught spouting Russian talking points. So much for “nuance.” ) Only one of the candidates has been up on the details of the crisis and specific on the required action.

Read Less

Philip Giraldi and Doug Feith

David Frum asks, “Who’s behind the fraud?” — the fraud having first been Ron Suskind’s claim that the White House ordered the CIA to forge documents, and, in its latest version, the claim that Dick Cheney tapped a willing Doug Feith at the Pentagon to carry out the forgery.

The person who has dragged Feith’s name into the controversy is a contributor to the American Conservative magazine named Philip Giraldi, who posted the allegation on the magazine’s blog and sourced it to an “extremely reliable” contact in the “intelligence community.”

Should Philip Giraldi be trusted? No: He is a conspiracy theorist obsessed with Jews and Israel. In Giraldi’s world, scratching the surface of almost any event exposes the sinister machinations of international Jewry.

1. He recently speculated that Israel would attempt to trigger war between the United States and Iran:

There are a number of possible “false flag” scenarios in which the Israelis could insert a commando team in the Persian Gulf or use some of their people inside Iraq to stage an incident that they will make to look Iranian, either by employing Iranian weapons or by leaving a communications footprint that points to Tehran’s involvement.

2. He thinks that someone is trying to frame Iran for American military casualties:

Iran has been on the receiving end of what appears to be an officially orchestrated but poorly executed disinformation campaign regarding its involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

3. Giraldi finds Israeli agents everywhere. In a critique of a Benny Morris New York Times op-ed, he says that “Even the generally Israel-first readership of the Times appears to be unconvinced.” In Giraldi’s imagination, the number of Americans who are loyal to Israel, not America, apparently runs to the scores of millions.

4. It almost goes without saying that Giraldi thinks Doug Feith might be an Israeli agent:

Most others would consider his action illegal and even treasonous in that it may have involved collusion with a foreign government, Israel.

5. Senator Phil Gramm, too:

Is your constituency the American people and the high ideals we stand for or is it only the Israel lobby with its political and financial muscle? I hope AIPAC gives you a lot of money in your next re-election bid. It’s not worth selling out for only 30 pieces of silver.

6. One of Giraldi’s most frequent subjects is Jewish control of the media. In an American Conservative piece that ran a month after Israel’s September 2007 airstrike on Syria, he speculated that media coverage of the incident was part of an international Israeli disinformation campaign:

In the intelligence community, a disinformation operation is a calculated attempt to convince an audience that falsehoods about an adversary are true, either to discredit him or, in an extreme case, to justify military action. When such a campaign is properly conducted, information is leaked to numerous outlets over a period of time, creating the impression of a media consensus that the story is true, as each new report validates earlier ones. …

Now a new operation—brought to us by the old players—may be unfolding.

7. A similar claim of behind-the-scenes Jewish manipulation of the media can be found in a 2005 letter he wrote to the Washington Post:

Your lengthy coverage of the Sept. 24 peace march curiously failed to mention the open and widespread criticism of Israel’s occupation of Palestine. … Clearly, most participants in the march noted that U.S. policies largely driven by Israeli interests are the fons etorigo for what ails the Middle East, even if The Washington Post did not.

8. Then there is the plainly bizarre. In 1996, Giraldi wrote a letter to the New York Times assailing the paper for describing a group of seven New Yorkers as “diverse.” Why was this group not diverse? Let him explain:

It appears that five of the “diverse” seven are Jews.

9. And finally we arrive at the subject of the Holocaust, which caused Giraldi to co-author in 1999 a letter to his alumni magazine. I reprint it in full: “Holocaust as political industry.”

Peter Novick asserts that the Holocaust has desensitized us to other genocides, but stops short of asking who invented the Holocaust in the first place. Who decided to capitalize the noun “holocaust” and transform genocide into a political weapon and fund-raising tool?

In America, which had little to do with the event itself, there is an ever-growing Holocaust industry in academia. There is a Holocaust publishing industry and a Holocaust Hollywood. There are Holocaust museums and memorials trying to make concrete what might otherwise become dated and ephemeral. And there is the Holocaust-promoting chorus of wealthy and influential American Jews who make sure we never forget.

“Never forgetting” is the best way to intensify the collective guilt on the part of America’s Christian majority and boost the Holocaust industry’s favorite political cause—the state of Israel. Guilt, laced with liberally dispensed charges of anti-Semitism for opponents and sweetened with a heavy sprinkling of PAC money, has made the Israel-firsters masters of the executive and legislative branches. Easy and often exclusive access to the media shapes public opinion. And at the end there is a pot of gold: unlimited political and military support plus $6 billion in U.S. taxpayer–provided annual aid to a country that is one of the richest on earth.

Nazis killing Jews has become the paradigm for modern-day genocide, but the Holocaust is hardly unique in the 20th century, which affords numerous examples of mass killing. The politics of mass murder nowadays, as practiced by dictators and democrats alike, is all about killing people with words before you actually shoot them. Perversely, the Holocaust is used to justify killing yet more people; i.e., to “prevent another Holocaust.”

As Novick notes, George Bush didn’t really cite the Holocaust to “disabuse us of Enlightenment illusions about man.” He wanted to suggest that men can be evil to justify the bloodshed in the war against Iraq. Nor was George Will debunking the Renaissance illusion that “…man becomes better as he becomes more clever.”

George is a realist who appreciates the use of force majeure, as long as it is not used against him or his friends. And then there’s Elie Wiesel, the Nobel laureate high priest of the Holocaust. Never once has Wiesel spoken out against Israel’s deplorable treatment of the Palestinians. It’s okay to kick an Arab, but never a Jew, and if we keep on reminding the world that the Nazis killed a lot of Jews, we can continue to kick Arabs and no one will say anything.
Rwandans, Biafrans, and Somalis are even lower on the scale than Arabs, and there are fewer journalists standing around watching how you treat them. Why intervene to save them? The Third World is descending into chaos, and they’ll only be fighting again before the week is out.

In short, can anyone deny that most invocations of the Holocaust are cynical and bogus? The Holocaust promoters understand that if you keep saying the same thing over and over again everyone will eventually believe it; i.e., that the Holocaust is the greatest evil in history and justifies special breaks not only for its survivors, but also for their descendants and co-religionists.

Perhaps what is truly unique about the Holocaust is the ability of its exploiters to preemptively silence their critics. Surely within the University of Chicago community there must be many who recognize that the Holocaust industry has gone too far, that the Holocaust is far from being the central event of the century, and that its message of an exclusivity in suffering—serving to promote a Zionist agenda—is dubious at best. But the open expression of such views might be unwise. It is safer to remain silent.

Philip M. Giraldi, AB’68
Purcellville, Virginia
John K. Taylor, AB’69
Fort Worth, Texas

It’s not surprising that people such as Giraldi exist. What is surprising is that such a man is published regularly in the American Conservative, a magazine that wishes to be taken seriously, and that his blog posts are linked by Andrew Sullivan, a blogger who also wishes to be taken seriously.

David Frum asks, “Who’s behind the fraud?” — the fraud having first been Ron Suskind’s claim that the White House ordered the CIA to forge documents, and, in its latest version, the claim that Dick Cheney tapped a willing Doug Feith at the Pentagon to carry out the forgery.

The person who has dragged Feith’s name into the controversy is a contributor to the American Conservative magazine named Philip Giraldi, who posted the allegation on the magazine’s blog and sourced it to an “extremely reliable” contact in the “intelligence community.”

Should Philip Giraldi be trusted? No: He is a conspiracy theorist obsessed with Jews and Israel. In Giraldi’s world, scratching the surface of almost any event exposes the sinister machinations of international Jewry.

1. He recently speculated that Israel would attempt to trigger war between the United States and Iran:

There are a number of possible “false flag” scenarios in which the Israelis could insert a commando team in the Persian Gulf or use some of their people inside Iraq to stage an incident that they will make to look Iranian, either by employing Iranian weapons or by leaving a communications footprint that points to Tehran’s involvement.

2. He thinks that someone is trying to frame Iran for American military casualties:

Iran has been on the receiving end of what appears to be an officially orchestrated but poorly executed disinformation campaign regarding its involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

3. Giraldi finds Israeli agents everywhere. In a critique of a Benny Morris New York Times op-ed, he says that “Even the generally Israel-first readership of the Times appears to be unconvinced.” In Giraldi’s imagination, the number of Americans who are loyal to Israel, not America, apparently runs to the scores of millions.

4. It almost goes without saying that Giraldi thinks Doug Feith might be an Israeli agent:

Most others would consider his action illegal and even treasonous in that it may have involved collusion with a foreign government, Israel.

5. Senator Phil Gramm, too:

Is your constituency the American people and the high ideals we stand for or is it only the Israel lobby with its political and financial muscle? I hope AIPAC gives you a lot of money in your next re-election bid. It’s not worth selling out for only 30 pieces of silver.

6. One of Giraldi’s most frequent subjects is Jewish control of the media. In an American Conservative piece that ran a month after Israel’s September 2007 airstrike on Syria, he speculated that media coverage of the incident was part of an international Israeli disinformation campaign:

In the intelligence community, a disinformation operation is a calculated attempt to convince an audience that falsehoods about an adversary are true, either to discredit him or, in an extreme case, to justify military action. When such a campaign is properly conducted, information is leaked to numerous outlets over a period of time, creating the impression of a media consensus that the story is true, as each new report validates earlier ones. …

Now a new operation—brought to us by the old players—may be unfolding.

7. A similar claim of behind-the-scenes Jewish manipulation of the media can be found in a 2005 letter he wrote to the Washington Post:

Your lengthy coverage of the Sept. 24 peace march curiously failed to mention the open and widespread criticism of Israel’s occupation of Palestine. … Clearly, most participants in the march noted that U.S. policies largely driven by Israeli interests are the fons etorigo for what ails the Middle East, even if The Washington Post did not.

8. Then there is the plainly bizarre. In 1996, Giraldi wrote a letter to the New York Times assailing the paper for describing a group of seven New Yorkers as “diverse.” Why was this group not diverse? Let him explain:

It appears that five of the “diverse” seven are Jews.

9. And finally we arrive at the subject of the Holocaust, which caused Giraldi to co-author in 1999 a letter to his alumni magazine. I reprint it in full: “Holocaust as political industry.”

Peter Novick asserts that the Holocaust has desensitized us to other genocides, but stops short of asking who invented the Holocaust in the first place. Who decided to capitalize the noun “holocaust” and transform genocide into a political weapon and fund-raising tool?

In America, which had little to do with the event itself, there is an ever-growing Holocaust industry in academia. There is a Holocaust publishing industry and a Holocaust Hollywood. There are Holocaust museums and memorials trying to make concrete what might otherwise become dated and ephemeral. And there is the Holocaust-promoting chorus of wealthy and influential American Jews who make sure we never forget.

“Never forgetting” is the best way to intensify the collective guilt on the part of America’s Christian majority and boost the Holocaust industry’s favorite political cause—the state of Israel. Guilt, laced with liberally dispensed charges of anti-Semitism for opponents and sweetened with a heavy sprinkling of PAC money, has made the Israel-firsters masters of the executive and legislative branches. Easy and often exclusive access to the media shapes public opinion. And at the end there is a pot of gold: unlimited political and military support plus $6 billion in U.S. taxpayer–provided annual aid to a country that is one of the richest on earth.

Nazis killing Jews has become the paradigm for modern-day genocide, but the Holocaust is hardly unique in the 20th century, which affords numerous examples of mass killing. The politics of mass murder nowadays, as practiced by dictators and democrats alike, is all about killing people with words before you actually shoot them. Perversely, the Holocaust is used to justify killing yet more people; i.e., to “prevent another Holocaust.”

As Novick notes, George Bush didn’t really cite the Holocaust to “disabuse us of Enlightenment illusions about man.” He wanted to suggest that men can be evil to justify the bloodshed in the war against Iraq. Nor was George Will debunking the Renaissance illusion that “…man becomes better as he becomes more clever.”

George is a realist who appreciates the use of force majeure, as long as it is not used against him or his friends. And then there’s Elie Wiesel, the Nobel laureate high priest of the Holocaust. Never once has Wiesel spoken out against Israel’s deplorable treatment of the Palestinians. It’s okay to kick an Arab, but never a Jew, and if we keep on reminding the world that the Nazis killed a lot of Jews, we can continue to kick Arabs and no one will say anything.
Rwandans, Biafrans, and Somalis are even lower on the scale than Arabs, and there are fewer journalists standing around watching how you treat them. Why intervene to save them? The Third World is descending into chaos, and they’ll only be fighting again before the week is out.

In short, can anyone deny that most invocations of the Holocaust are cynical and bogus? The Holocaust promoters understand that if you keep saying the same thing over and over again everyone will eventually believe it; i.e., that the Holocaust is the greatest evil in history and justifies special breaks not only for its survivors, but also for their descendants and co-religionists.

Perhaps what is truly unique about the Holocaust is the ability of its exploiters to preemptively silence their critics. Surely within the University of Chicago community there must be many who recognize that the Holocaust industry has gone too far, that the Holocaust is far from being the central event of the century, and that its message of an exclusivity in suffering—serving to promote a Zionist agenda—is dubious at best. But the open expression of such views might be unwise. It is safer to remain silent.

Philip M. Giraldi, AB’68
Purcellville, Virginia
John K. Taylor, AB’69
Fort Worth, Texas

It’s not surprising that people such as Giraldi exist. What is surprising is that such a man is published regularly in the American Conservative, a magazine that wishes to be taken seriously, and that his blog posts are linked by Andrew Sullivan, a blogger who also wishes to be taken seriously.

Read Less

How Can It Be?

Many liberal pundits aren’t pleased with Barack Obama’s campaign. Their complaints vary but “He’s not tough enough” or “I don’t know who he is” are two of the more common ones. Another comes along today: “Whatever happened to the Obama who was the enemy of excessive partisanship and evangelist of national unity?” Michael Tomasky comes up with a list of possible explanations, but he’s missing the real one: it was always a bunch of hooey.

To begin with, Obama never practiced what he preached outside of the campaign. He was the most extreme liberal in the U.S. Senate and took no part in bipartisan compromises like the Gang of 14 which was designed to cool partisan fury. You really can’t be a spokesman for bipartisan or nonpartisan leadership when, for example, you can’t bring yourself to condemn MoveOn.org’s slimy attack on General Petraeus. At least before June, Obama was the poster child, not for nonpartisanship, but for ultra-liberalism on every issue imaginable (e.g. partial birth abortion, retreat from Iraq). And he wasn’t about to chide his own side for any excesses.

Then, if it wasn’t clear before, we learned over the course of the campaign, that Obama’s high appeals to idealism, whether you call it New Politics or nonpartisanship, were not much more than a couple of lines in speeches. We had the parade of Obama surrogates attacking John McCain’s military service and we had the race card gambit. We had the misleading “100 years” attack which even the mainstream media didn’t buy. And we had the cheesy (and it turns out misplaced) effort to label McCain as the tool of big oil. Nothing in Obama’s actual behavior (the conduct of his campaign, that is) suggested that he is committed to lowering the heat or raising the tone. And of course, he refused (and then wouldn’t admit he had refused) to accept McCain’s offer to hold civil townhall debates. None of this is unusual for a politician, but it is a “fairytale” in the words of Bill Clinton, to believe Obama practices his holier-than-thou rhetoric.

The better explanation is that nonpartisanship is a pose and a sword to attack his opponents. It is remarkable that Obama continually leaves liberal pundits scratching their heads. How do his flip-flops mesh with the New Politics? How can he speak to nonpartisanship and run grainy ads of McCain standing next to President Bush? Please. If we’ve learned anything during this campaign it is that Hillary Clinton’s assessment of her former opponent was on the money: it’s just words.

Many liberal pundits aren’t pleased with Barack Obama’s campaign. Their complaints vary but “He’s not tough enough” or “I don’t know who he is” are two of the more common ones. Another comes along today: “Whatever happened to the Obama who was the enemy of excessive partisanship and evangelist of national unity?” Michael Tomasky comes up with a list of possible explanations, but he’s missing the real one: it was always a bunch of hooey.

To begin with, Obama never practiced what he preached outside of the campaign. He was the most extreme liberal in the U.S. Senate and took no part in bipartisan compromises like the Gang of 14 which was designed to cool partisan fury. You really can’t be a spokesman for bipartisan or nonpartisan leadership when, for example, you can’t bring yourself to condemn MoveOn.org’s slimy attack on General Petraeus. At least before June, Obama was the poster child, not for nonpartisanship, but for ultra-liberalism on every issue imaginable (e.g. partial birth abortion, retreat from Iraq). And he wasn’t about to chide his own side for any excesses.

Then, if it wasn’t clear before, we learned over the course of the campaign, that Obama’s high appeals to idealism, whether you call it New Politics or nonpartisanship, were not much more than a couple of lines in speeches. We had the parade of Obama surrogates attacking John McCain’s military service and we had the race card gambit. We had the misleading “100 years” attack which even the mainstream media didn’t buy. And we had the cheesy (and it turns out misplaced) effort to label McCain as the tool of big oil. Nothing in Obama’s actual behavior (the conduct of his campaign, that is) suggested that he is committed to lowering the heat or raising the tone. And of course, he refused (and then wouldn’t admit he had refused) to accept McCain’s offer to hold civil townhall debates. None of this is unusual for a politician, but it is a “fairytale” in the words of Bill Clinton, to believe Obama practices his holier-than-thou rhetoric.

The better explanation is that nonpartisanship is a pose and a sword to attack his opponents. It is remarkable that Obama continually leaves liberal pundits scratching their heads. How do his flip-flops mesh with the New Politics? How can he speak to nonpartisanship and run grainy ads of McCain standing next to President Bush? Please. If we’ve learned anything during this campaign it is that Hillary Clinton’s assessment of her former opponent was on the money: it’s just words.

Read Less

The Importance of The Surge

By now the improvement in conditions in Iraq is undeniable. But opponents of the surge are still loath to give credit where it’s due. Too often we hear that the “surge” was just one factor among many–and not necessarily the most important–in the improving security situation. Other factors are often cited, including the Sunni Awakening, the growing size and effectiveness of the Iraqi Security Forces, and Moqtada al Sadr’s retreat. Those other developments are real and important, but they would not have been game-changers were it not for the additional influx of American soldiers and a change of strategy in how they were employed.

You don’t have to take my word for it. Read this important article in Sunday’s Washington Post by one of the architects of the surge-PeteMansoor, who as an army colonel served as General Petraeus’s executive officer (i.e., right-hand man) up until his retirement this summer.

For more of Mansoor’s first-hand perspective, check out his invaluable new memoir: “Baghdad at Sunrise: A Brigade Commander’s War in Iraq”.

By now the improvement in conditions in Iraq is undeniable. But opponents of the surge are still loath to give credit where it’s due. Too often we hear that the “surge” was just one factor among many–and not necessarily the most important–in the improving security situation. Other factors are often cited, including the Sunni Awakening, the growing size and effectiveness of the Iraqi Security Forces, and Moqtada al Sadr’s retreat. Those other developments are real and important, but they would not have been game-changers were it not for the additional influx of American soldiers and a change of strategy in how they were employed.

You don’t have to take my word for it. Read this important article in Sunday’s Washington Post by one of the architects of the surge-PeteMansoor, who as an army colonel served as General Petraeus’s executive officer (i.e., right-hand man) up until his retirement this summer.

For more of Mansoor’s first-hand perspective, check out his invaluable new memoir: “Baghdad at Sunrise: A Brigade Commander’s War in Iraq”.

Read Less

Flotsam and Jetsam

If you thought the “skinny” analysis was bizarre get a load of this. Tip for Obama fans: when you make your candidate into a messiah-like figure, create totalitarian iconography and celebrate your candidate’s gibberish as if it were sacred text you are asking for it. Ross Douthat pretty much says it all. (And just ignore the halo.)

And after a while voters begin to think you are just “insane.”

Jon Ralston joins the ABC debate moderators in the Left’s hall of fame of villiany: Thou Shalt Not Ask Hard Questions.

You have to love how the liberal pundits repackage Obama’s vapid mush as “nuance.” (Test: what nuance exactly is he driving at ? What secret ambiguity is he exploring? Puleez — he said as little as possible suggesting he hasn’t a clue what to do or what is going on.) One can only imagine how he would have reacted to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. (“Everyone should just take a deep breath.”)

A pithy critique of Obama from McCain’s radio address: “America is finally winning in Iraq, and he wants to forfeit. Government is too big, and he wants to grow it. Taxes are too high, and he wants to raise them. Congress spends too much, and he proposes more. We need more energy, and he’s against producing it.” (Sounds like an ad, doesn’t it?)

The media: more sanctimonious than John Edwards. (And of all the people to whom Edwards owes an apology self-deluded liberal bloggers rank pretty low.) Meanwhile, the “no kidding” headline award goes to this one.

Mr. Suskind’s reporting appears to be less reliable than the National Enquirer’s.

I’d also like to hear what Obama thinks of Leftists knee-capping Republican donors.

While the media obsesses on a story they said was irrelevant a day earlier , there is a real war – a new one. Condi Rice’s language gets tougher. “Be calm” apparently didn’t work.

If you thought the “skinny” analysis was bizarre get a load of this. Tip for Obama fans: when you make your candidate into a messiah-like figure, create totalitarian iconography and celebrate your candidate’s gibberish as if it were sacred text you are asking for it. Ross Douthat pretty much says it all. (And just ignore the halo.)

And after a while voters begin to think you are just “insane.”

Jon Ralston joins the ABC debate moderators in the Left’s hall of fame of villiany: Thou Shalt Not Ask Hard Questions.

You have to love how the liberal pundits repackage Obama’s vapid mush as “nuance.” (Test: what nuance exactly is he driving at ? What secret ambiguity is he exploring? Puleez — he said as little as possible suggesting he hasn’t a clue what to do or what is going on.) One can only imagine how he would have reacted to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. (“Everyone should just take a deep breath.”)

A pithy critique of Obama from McCain’s radio address: “America is finally winning in Iraq, and he wants to forfeit. Government is too big, and he wants to grow it. Taxes are too high, and he wants to raise them. Congress spends too much, and he proposes more. We need more energy, and he’s against producing it.” (Sounds like an ad, doesn’t it?)

The media: more sanctimonious than John Edwards. (And of all the people to whom Edwards owes an apology self-deluded liberal bloggers rank pretty low.) Meanwhile, the “no kidding” headline award goes to this one.

Mr. Suskind’s reporting appears to be less reliable than the National Enquirer’s.

I’d also like to hear what Obama thinks of Leftists knee-capping Republican donors.

While the media obsesses on a story they said was irrelevant a day earlier , there is a real war – a new one. Condi Rice’s language gets tougher. “Be calm” apparently didn’t work.

Read Less




Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.