Reports have been emerging that the August 2 attack by Lebanese forces on Israeli soldiers in Israel was ordered in advance by the Lebanese army chain of command. An article in today’s Sydney Morning Herald describes the admission from a Lebanese official, who met with the IDF after the incident, that the attack was planned by Lebanon’s military. The Herald’s information is sourced to the Lebanese newspaper As Safir; meanwhile, the NOW Lebanon news website cites al-Manar TV in its report, according to which “the order to open fire in Tuesday’s border skirmish [came] ‘directly from the [army] command.’” And Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren, in a Washington Post editorial today, mentions that Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah “sent a television crew to film the ambush” — a preparation picked up on earlier by Italian media, Ronen Bergman at the Wall Street Journal, and several bloggers, who noted that the Lebanese reporter killed in the exchange worked for Hezbollah outlet Al Akhbar. (H/t: Israel Matzav, Emet m’Tsiyon, Pajamas)
Among the obvious points to make about this incident, there’s one that may not be quite so obvious. Monday’s dangerous and irresponsible action involved a national army attacking the territory of another nation. It could be considered an act of war. And if it was indeed planned by elements of the Lebanese army acting as agents for Hezbollah, then it appears as though the Lebanese were counting on Israeli restraint and professionalism to keep the event a photo-op and not let it spiral out of control. They counted on Israel, in other words, to treat the attack as it does Hezbollah’s terror attacks.
I’m reminded of something I heard almost 20 years ago from a Navy admiral, a submariner who had been involved in discussions with his counterparts in the Soviet submarine force in the early 1990s. After the 1992 collision of USS Baton Rouge with a Russian submarine, the admiral recounted an informal disclosure from a senior Soviet submariner about undersea safety. The Soviet officer acknowledged that the Soviets’ expertise and equipment were inferior to ours. A Soviet submarine – even a nuclear-powered submarine carrying nuclear missiles – operated more blindly than one of ours and with less of the submariner’s special brand of seamanship. “That,” said the Soviet officer, “is why we rely on you to prevent collisions.”
Clashes of arms magnify asymmetries as nothing else does. But the asymmetry in each of the cases here – the U.S. and Soviet submarine forces and the Israeli and Lebanese armies – is more profound than a mere difference in the quality of weapons and training. The essential recklessness of inviting peril that must be held in check by a reliable enemy is foreign to the consensual-democratic mind. Although Israel has faced such recklessness from terrorists for years, we must not miss the lesson that national armies can be wielded in the same manner. The analogies invited by this glimpse of Lebanese reality are, to say the least, disturbing.
Obama’s spent his ammo re: negative ads. McCain hasn’t even fired a shot. I hate to sound like a broken record, but McCain’s failure to basically explain to America who Barack Obama is–since the media won’t do it, and Clinton couldn’t due to the demographics of the Democratic primary–borders on malpractice.
On the day of McCain’s acceptance speech O’Reilly ran the clip of Obama telling him “the surge has succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest dreams.” Most assumed that would make its way into McCain’s speech that night. It didn’t, and not a single McCain ad (who knows about stump speeches, since the media wouldn’t cover them) has so much as mentioned this. That’s stunning. Same for the connection between Obama and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. Same for the “bitter Americans” line, which Obama came close to reiterating in spirit again last night in Hollywood.
Where are McCain’s people on this, let alone Ayres and Wright and infanticide (which, at least, outside groups are spending piddling amounts of money on)? Have they been stared down by the media and its branding of McCain as too dirty over the past week? I think the answer is yes, and it will cost McCain the election.
There is no doubt in my mind that Obama’s negative ads HAVE WORKED, and quite beautifully. It is past the time for McCain to attack, always truthfully, but strongly, mercilessly, brutally. Americans may well vote for this semi-Marxist with a shady past and choose him to be their President, but they at least must KNOW who he is.
It may be time for everyones favorite Pastor to make an appearance….
I think McCain is waiting for after the debates. Maybe he will unveil a truth about Obama express and carry that “surge” to election day. This is a 15 minute media rotation. Everyone forgets the last thing said. Have we ever seen the MSM and a Democratic candidate go negative at the same time with the same fury? This is no freedom of the press. It is very challenging for McCain, and I think, as usual, they are letting Obama win some points, to see his weaknesses and hit him hard down the stretch. Remember, one man supported a plan to win in Iraq, one man went with the political winds and polls.
Clearly, there is a difference between negative ads and blatantly dishonest ads. Both the non-partisan fact-checking groups and the mainstream media (and, yes, even many serious conservative analysts and Fox news) have judged that McCain’s ads are more often dishonest.
Judging by the trendlines, it seems that the public is coming to the same conclusion.
“Remember, one man supported a plan to win in Iraq”– JM
And that would be Ahmadinejad? Or was he just the lucky recipient of our strategic blunder?
SwampFox, which McCain ads have been dishonest? I know the most controversial one has been the sex ed ad, which several on the right, including most comprehensively Byron York, have pretty well demonstrated was well in-bounds. Certainly it wasn’t any worse, at all, than Obama basing his entire campaign on a truncated McCain sentence (economy fundamentals) or the 100-year-war thing or the seven houses flap…
“SwampFox, which McCain ads have been dishonest?”
That’s right! Where are the specifics? These vague accusations are getting a bit old.
David,
Strategic blunder. The surge? Described by Obama as succeeding beyond our wildest dreams? (His dreams anyways, McCain actual vision and implementation.)
Also, do you think the UN and EU diplomacy with Iran has been a stunning success? What do you propose to do with A’jad and his nuclear ambitions. Oh, I see, blame the US. That was easy.
Obama’s pitch is also a lie, while McCain’s is clearly the truth.
My point exactly, from the SF Chronicle blog:
“Here’s the fine print: The WAPpers define “negative” as any time you mention the opponent’s name. So if Team O ran an ad that said “My economic plan is better than John McCain’s” — ding! ding! ding! — that rings negative bells in the WAP’s ears. And they don’t measure the veracity of the ads or whether something was a personal attack or a policy attack.”
Platano: Byron York? Wow, there’s a journalist. Did Rush agree with him?
On your sex ed ad, here’s Fact Check’s summary:
“A McCain-Palin campaign ad claims Obama’s “one accomplishment” in the area of education was “legislation to teach ‘comprehensive sex education’ to kindergarteners.” But the claim is simply false, and it dates back to Alan Keyes’ failed race against Obama for an open Senate seat in 2004.
“Obama, contrary to the ad’s insinuation, does not support explicit sex education for kindergarteners. And the bill, which would have allowed only “age appropriate” material and a no-questions-asked opt-out policy for parents, was not his accomplishment to claim in any case, since he was not even a cosponsor – and the bill never left the state Senate.
“In addition, the ad quotes unflattering assessments of the Illinois senator’s record on education but leaves out sometimes equally harsh criticism directed at McCain in the same forums.”
Or, if that doesn’t work for you, how about the “Lipstick on a pig” ad? McCain himself (“McCain says Obama didn’t call Palin a pig”– AP, two days ago) has said he doesn’t believe Obama was directing the comment toward Palin. But McCain’s spot clearly reads “Barack Obama on Sarah Palin” as it leads into Obama’s lipstick quote. An obvious lie, which is why McCain backpedaled.
The examples are too numerous to mention. By all means, take look at FactCheck’s long list of McCain’s distortions and compare his record to Obama’s. Not even close. Even Karl Rove has criticized McCain’s obvious departures from fact.
Ruth Marcus, WaPo:
“McCain’s transgressions, though, are of a different magnitude. His whoppers are bigger; there are more of them. He — the easy out would be to say “his campaign” — has been misleading, and at times has outright lied, about his opponent. He has misrepresented — that’s the charitable verb — his vice presidential nominee’s record. Called on these fouls, he has denied and repeated them…
Are there any corners left for McCain? Is there any reason to trust that a man running this campaign would go on to be an honest president?”
Or, if you prefer, Richard Cohen,
“McCain has turned ugly. His dishonesty would be unacceptable in any politician, but McCain has always set his own bar higher than most. He has contempt for most of his colleagues for that very reason: They lie. He tells the truth. He internalizes the code of the McCains — his grandfather, his father: both admirals of the shining sea. He serves his country differently, that’s all — but just as honorably. No more, though.”
–”The Ugly New McCain,” WaPo
I agree with #2 oy above. The Obama&MSM negative hits on both McCain and Palin have worked; the polls have gone down quite a bit. I don’t like how VA looks like. Also, what’s with RCP? It has Obama up by 34 EV with no toss ups it was +8 yesterday; but I can tell what has changed so dramatically in the last day ?
Sad but true, Jonas. The surge helped to knock down violence. But what did we win?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-violence-is-down-ndash-but-not-because-of-americas-surge-929896.html
“If McCain wins the presidential election in November, his lack of understanding of what is happening in Iraq could ignite a fresh conflict. In so far as the surge has achieved military success, it is because it implicitly recognises America’s political defeat in Iraq. Whatever the reason for President George Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein in 2003, it was not to place the Shia Islamic parties in power and increase the influence of Iran in the country; yet that is exactly what has happened.”
McCain could also mention that Obama is corrupt, and start listing the earmarks for friends, family, staff, and campaign donors.
Starting with his wife getting a $200,000 raise after Obama was elected to the US Senate, then his wife’s hospital receiving a $1 million earmark. Or the Obama earmark for Joe Biden’s son’s lobbying firm. Stuff like that. It might work.
#14
Diane, I am sure it WOULD work, if used. The Earmark-Wife raise is so scandalous that, had it happened to a minor congressman or senator of either party, would already have provoked a federal investigation. It’s banana-republic politics at its worst.
Attack now, Senator McCain! Attack boldly!
Swamp Fox-
Have you read the text of the bill that Obama voted yes on? No “summaries” or “explanations”-the actual words.
Here it is:
“Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.”
And you’re right-the bill didn’t pass because the other people voting on it were apparently smarter than Obama.
Okay RCP is back on +8 with no toss ups. But Gallup has Obama up by +2 and the new States polls by CNN/Time are bad for McCain (the North Carolina one is weird !! has McCain only +1)…..
What’s going on?
They (MSM & Obama camp) have been hitting McCain’s honor badly and Palin after the ABC News interview… This + economy might be responsible for the latest polls; or ??
I love how SwampFox easily dismisses journalists he doesn’t like/agree with as worthless, and then quotes the ones in his own political side as perfect examples of judgement. Isn’t Richard Cohen the one who said that choosing Palin was the equivalent of Caligula’s horse? What a powerful display of wisdom and high-mindedness, eh? We’re so impressed.
That’s your definition of “hard data”?!?!?!?!?!?
The following line from a blog?
“77% of the Obama campaigns’ ads were deemed “negative,” compared to 56% for McCain.”
Where are the raw numbers?
Who collected them?
How did they collect them?
Who decided what would be deemed “negative”?
Based on what methodology?
My advice to you would be to hang on to your job and stay away from any field that deals with science, statistics, and data.
David,
your sad revisionist history. The surge prevent a genocidal bloodbath, and put Iraq on course for democracy. It is still a fragile peace that needs a lot more work.
The UK quote is incomprehensible. Even the grammar is off. Find a better quote. Also, the military success did not come from a future failure. It came from military success.
Rod: As is often the case, the CNN data is wildly divergent from most/all other polls (and either by virtue of their mathematical model or plain bias their poll usually has favored Obama, beginning in the Dem primaries. It’s worrisome, but remember the source).
P.S. You scared the bejeesus out of me when you wrote that the “no toss-up” margin had gone from 8 to 34!! I’m still clinging to the “hold Ohio and Virginia while winning N.M. for 270″ scenario.