Sore

Barack Obama, speaking to The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, offered a sensible reply to a sensible-but-sensitive question:

JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America’s reputation overseas?

BO: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable.

GOP Reps. John Boehner and Eric Cantor decided to prove they studied hard in the school of misreading and misrepresenting:

It is truly disappointing that Senator Obama called Israel a ‘constant wound,’ ‘constant sore,’ and that it ‘infect[s] all of our foreign policy.’ These sorts of words and characterizations are the words of a politician with a deep misunderstanding of the Middle East and an innate distrust of Israel.

Eliding here is the difference between calling Israel, the country, a sore and calling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a sore. But I guess Reps. Boehner and Cantor think the conflict is a good thing, that's helpful to Israelis, and makes America's relationships with other Arab political actors easier? Andrew Sullivan, Marc Ambinder, and Goldberg offer further commentary. I'll just say that, at the end of the day, I think Israel and Israelis will be better off with an American president who thinks the conflict is a serious problem that he'll put a relatively high priority on than with a president who intends to pay Israel the false compliment of pretending that the situation is somehow no big deal.

Photo of Herzliya Station by Flickr user David55King used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Eliding here is the difference between calling Israel, the country, a sore and calling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a sore.

What are you going to do, cry? This sort of mendacious elision is a pretty standard neocon move. If anything is surprising, it's that we had to wait for Boehner and Cantor for the tranformation. One would have expected Goldberg to do it up front.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 13, 2008 9:33 AM

So, now Obama is a secret Muslim who is a radical black nationalist Christian who looks down on people who cling to religion and whom the Muslims may want to kill because he is not a Muslim but he wants to destroy Israel which he innately distrusts?

Man. Gettin' complicated.

Posted by El Cid | May 13, 2008 9:34 AM

I get so tired of all these Emily Litella moments from the GOP. Last week it was "losing his bearings." This week, some other faux outrage. Are the press ever going to ask for clarification from our brave Solons of stupid?

Posted by z_adura | May 13, 2008 9:38 AM

Are the press ever going to ask for clarification from our brave Solons of stupid?

Posted by z_adura

No. THBSA2SQ's.

Posted by El Cid | May 13, 2008 9:40 AM

More and more, the lesson of this campaign is that the Republicans can't understand English. "[L]ost his bearings" they think means, "Is too old to be President." That the "lack of resolution to [the Israeli-Palestinian] problem" is a "constant wound" they think means Israel is a constant wound.

I think the American people are smarter than they are.

Posted by David in NY | May 13, 2008 9:43 AM

Liberals need to work the refs or otherwise the Republicans will get away with bloody murder.

Posted by Micheline | May 13, 2008 9:50 AM

Senator Obamas' comment about the Israeli/Palestinian dispute being a sore on US relations with the Muslim world is, in part, correct. However, where he goes wrong is the assumption that, if only the US president applies himself to affecting a solution, all will be well. The trouble is, there is no solution at the present time. The Palestinians demand that the State of Israel agree to go out of business. The Government of Israel refuses to do so. Since would be President Obama has already said that forcing the Government of Israel to go out of business is off the table, how does he propose to convince the Palestinians to take their demand off the table? President Clinton was unable to accomplish this.

That's the problem with would be President Obama and it's where his naivete' and inexperience shows. This, together with his association with Israel bashers like General McPeak, Prof. Brzezinski, and Robert Malley bodes ill as their approach is to apply pressure on the Government of Israel to make concessions.

Posted by SLC | May 13, 2008 9:51 AM

"[L]ost his bearings" they think means, "Is too old to be President."

Too be perfectly honest, when I heard that Obama said this, my first thought was, "Wow. He really knows how to stick it to McCain." Any other Democrat would have pleaded for McCain and Republicans to "call off the attacks," but Obama's said all but, "The man has lost his marbles^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hbearings."

I expect Boehner to be similarly clocked in the head by the Obama campaign over his stupid statement.

Posted by Tyro | May 13, 2008 9:53 AM

It's not surprising that these bozos would lie. Hell, it's all they have at this point. What is surprising is how quickly the press turned around and smacked them down for it. Still, the meme is out there now and the right-wing smear machine will soldier on with one more lie about Obama. Par for the course, I suppose. I just hope his rapid response team is adequately funded and staffed 'cua this is only the beginning.

Posted by Shawn | May 13, 2008 9:53 AM

"Sounds like" arguments are a rhetorical staple of the right. Limbaugh, for example, couldn't exist 20 minutes without them. What's dispiriting to me is the way that elected officials like Boehner and Cantor here and -- at the other end -- ordinary bozos like the Als of the world have taken up the tactic. Mendacity has become an accepted way of talking politics all down the line.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 13, 2008 9:54 AM

Mendacity has become an accepted way of talking politics all down the line.

It's not just about politics. You think Al is any more honest with his wife, his children, or the people he does business with? You think Boehner doesn't lie about his staff and colleagues when he has a disagreement with them? They haven't been corrupted by the political environment. They're just bad people.

Posted by Tyro | May 13, 2008 9:58 AM

I wasn't aware that a scandal had developed over the phrase "lost his bearings" but I remember thinking at the time Obama said it that it was an awesomely elegant way of suggesting, without saying, "lost his marbles".

Posted by Ryan | May 13, 2008 9:58 AM

John Boehner and Eric Cantor decided to prove they studied hard in the school of misreading and misrepresenting:

Here is an example of why the right always wins the rhetorical wars. Boenner and other right-wingers have no problem at all making unequivocal statements even when they know the statements they're making are untrue. Far too often liberals are afraid to make unequivocal statements, even when all the facts are on their side.

Boehner Cantor aren't misrepresenting Obama's remarks and they did not misread them. They are lying.

Posted by Rob Mac | May 13, 2008 10:07 AM

You think Al is any more honest with his wife, his children, or the people he does business with?

Wait, what?

Posted by Al | May 13, 2008 10:13 AM

However, where he goes wrong is the assumption that, if only the US president applies himself to affecting a solution, all will be well.

I agree that this is probably the case. The argument for doing it anyway is that it is better PR to appear to be trying to effect a solution, however doomed the effort may be.

The fact that no solution is within reach is the best argument for us disentangling ourselves from the whole thing. If we were completely neutral and uninvolved, then the continuation of a conflict wouldn't be a problem for us. I realize that a policy of neutrality is not going to happen, no matter who gets elected.

Posted by Jim W | May 13, 2008 10:15 AM

It will be interesting to see if the GOP figures out this stuff is destroying their party soon enough to save it.

Posted by DTM | May 13, 2008 10:19 AM

Little Green Footballs are all over this, too. I'm a little surprised, because to believe Obama was revering to Israel you'd need to explain how a country can be a "constant wound." Constant? How can a country have constancy? A CONFLICT, maybe, but a country?

The wingnutosphere seems to be counting on the famous low education levels and faith in Republican spokesmen of American Jews. Good luck, guys.

Posted by David Weigel | May 13, 2008 10:22 AM

The "lost his bearings" line was most certainly a subtle jab meant to tick McCain off. Obama does it a lot, really -- see the many "praise his five decades of service" or "many decades of service" lines as well. It's pretty funny, actually. I think he's trying to bait McCain into losing his temper.

Posted by jbryan | May 13, 2008 10:22 AM

They missed you, Al, and summoned you.

Posted by El Cid | May 13, 2008 10:22 AM

Sorry Al, the politics of personal destruction are everywhere. But don't worry, their negative energy only makes you stronger.

As for Obama, he's very good at counterattacks. For one thing, he doesn't flinch, he takes on the attackers head on and is reasonable enough (in both senses of the word) to makes the other side look petty.

If the Republicans blow this up, Obama will turn it into a net positive. Seriously, does anyone think the Israel-Palestinian conflict isn't a problem for us in the Middle East?

Posted by beowulf | May 13, 2008 10:23 AM

We might as well hit back in turn: They are a bunch of neo-fascists who are trying to make all of greater Israel "arabenfrei."

For instance, the Elon peace plan is essentially analogous to Eichmann's early war offers. Mandatory deportation? Check. Nominal compensation for property loss? Check. Weird references to the Palestinians' "actual" homeland? Check.

Of course, Benny Elon's plan receives only token support in Israel and I don't for a minute think that his next step would be the installation of gas chambers and razor-wire. But really, why do we let that stop us?

Posted by SAO | May 13, 2008 10:24 AM

John Boehner and Eric Cantor: Liars extraordinaire.

This can not be repeated enough.

Posted by Northern Observer | May 13, 2008 10:27 AM

My first thought upon reading this is that the Democrats should hit back with massive force. There are thirty-odd Jews in the House of Representatives; they are ALL Democrats except for Eric Cantor. There is no reason Obama -- or any Democratic candidate for national office -- should ever be on the defensive when it comes to Israel.

I don't think a mealy-mouthed statement from Rahm Emanuel attesting to the bipartisan support for Israel cuts it. How about a joint statement from all the Jewish House Democrats to the effect of:

"We denounce Rep. Boehner and Rep. Cantor's craven distortion of Sen. Obama's stirring words in support of Israel. We stand firmly behind Sen. Obama in the important goal of seeking security for Israel and peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and we reject the view of the Republican Party that helping to make peace in the Holy Land should not be a top priority of the next President of the United States. Their ignorant and cowardly statements have reminded America once again why the Republican Jewish caucus in the House of Representatives has a membership of one. We call on Rep. Boehner and Rep. Cantor to resign their leadership positions in the House and to apologize to Sen. Obama and to all Americans who care deeply about peace and security for Israel."

Totally disproportionate, sure, but the best defense is a good offense.

Posted by Dave | May 13, 2008 10:33 AM

John Boehner really, really recommends you get the undercoating. He's not even sure he's willing to sell you the car if you're not going to take care of a beauty like that.

Posted by El Cid | May 13, 2008 10:34 AM

Boehner's idiotic comment just shows how utterly insincere the Rethugs are. Obama anti Israel? What a freakin joke. His interview was a tsunami of pro-Israel cant that is proof positive of the Walt-Mersheimer thesis! Every word coulda been written by Abe Foxman.

Posted by Egypt Steve | May 13, 2008 10:42 AM

The Israeli/Palestinian dispute was part of the motivation for the September 11 attacks, so I agree that a resolution is in our national security interest.

Posted by croatoan | May 13, 2008 10:48 AM

I'll just say that, at the end of the day, I think Israel and Israelis will be better off with an American president who thinks the conflict is a serious problem that he'll put a relatively high priority on than with a president who intends to pay Israel the false compliment of pretending that the situation is somehow no big deal.

I don't know - I think Israel has been perfectly content to have the US do nothing but wholeheartedly support it the last few years, and all the while it continues to build settlements, annex land, and crush what will to live there is left among the Palestinians.

Posted by McKingford | May 13, 2008 10:48 AM

Dave: that is perfect. Like Patton used to say: "Grab 'em by the nose, and kick 'em in the ass!"

Posted by Egypt Steve | May 13, 2008 10:56 AM

My first thought upon reading this is that the Democrats should hit back with massive force. There are thirty-odd Jews in the House of Representatives; they are ALL Democrats except for Eric Cantor.

That's not going to happen, as many of those representatives are for Sen. Clinton. Maybe if we had a nominee now and a unified party, but...

Posted by jbryan | May 13, 2008 10:58 AM

Boehner's and Cantor's characterizations are actually less dishonest than your claim on Sunday that McCain has been "declaring war" on Medicare and Social Security, but there is dishonesty on all sides here.

Obviously, Israel is a drag on America's reputation overseas. To claim that the drag is the Arab-Israeli conflict is to elide the reality that the cause of that conflict (from the perspective of the Arabs) was the creation of Israel in the first place (to pretend the issue is simply about West Bank settlements is to pretend there was no conflict prior to 1967). So Obama is being dishonest in denying that Israel is a drag on our reputation overseas. And Cantor and Boehner are being dishonest by implying that they care if Israel is a drag on our reputation overseas. They would both want to continue to support Israel if every other country in the world disliked us for doing so. For that matter, so would Obama (at least until November 4th).

Posted by Fred | May 13, 2008 10:58 AM

The main problem here is the one noted by EgyptSteve.

Because there's no room for an American politician to have and to articulate substantive criticisms of Israel's handling of the Palestinians and of foreign affairs more generally--with the possible exception of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich (not your *mainstream* politicians they)--the debate over American relations with Israel quickly becomes who can be pro-Israel in the best and smartest way. Any legitimate debate over what America's proper relationship with Israel should be is, from almost the moment the issue is raised, removed from the table.

Posted by wj | May 13, 2008 11:02 AM

I'm choking a little as I say this, but...what Fred said.

Posted by McKingford | May 13, 2008 11:03 AM

Fred, this is an example of how the corrupting nature of the political environment forces you to make an ass out of yourself trying to explain that what Boehner said really isn't that bad. The problem is that it's going to infect the rest of your life, too, as long as you stand behind these mendacious idiots you've thrown your lot in with.

Posted by Tyro | May 13, 2008 11:05 AM

JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America’s reputation overseas?

MNP: Yes.

Good thing I'm not running, TNR would get the vapors.

Posted by MNPundit | May 13, 2008 11:17 AM

Tyro,

Do you think what you wrote is an honest and complete characterization of my last comment? Read it again and ask yourself if your distortions are due to the "corrupting nature of the political environment".

Posted by Fred | May 13, 2008 11:24 AM

re: Fred's "elide"

You can't elide out substantive material without harming the facts. With the Arab-Israeli conflict, elision is at the heart of the corrupt discussion. Israelis elide stuff. Arabs elide stuff. It's a wound, as Obama points out.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 13, 2008 11:30 AM

SLC I think you managed a level of mendacity equal to perhaps surpassing that of Boehner and Cantor when you wrote "However, where he goes wrong is the assumption that, if only the US president applies himself to affecting a solution, all will be well." They at least quoted a word Obama said (just one word and qutoed out of context). You present no evidence whatsoever for your completely unsupported claim.

Fred you do not even argue your claim that "Boehner's and Cantor's characterizations are actually less dishonest than your claim on Sunday that McCain has been "declaring war" on Medicare and Social Security," Instead you attach the integrity of Yglesias then move on to claim that, of course Obama thinks Israel is a sore because you think Israel is a sore and he must agree with you. Note this has nothing to do with B and C's claim, nore with Yglesias's claim. You toss an insult then don't try to back it up (obviously since you can't strong phrasing, hyperbole even, is not more dishonest than constructing a clearly false alleged quote using one quoted word).

Robert: Will brilliant comments by El Cid (yeah he's just another liberal Moslem Christian apostate secularist) and Z_adura and Weigel you just can't resist the temptation to feed the trolls. And you have no sense of humore and are overheated to the point of rudeness.

Posted by Robert Waldmann | May 13, 2008 11:48 AM

"It's a wound, as Obama points out."

You, and Obama, are eliding the points that 1) it's a wound that wouldn't exist if Israel didn't exist; 2) it wouldn't "infect" our foreign policy if we didn't support Israel. You can argue that we should still support Israel anyway, but it's dishonest to deny that our support of Israel is a drag on our reputation overseas, particularly in the eyes of most of those in the Arab world and the broader Muslim world.

Posted by Fred | May 13, 2008 11:54 AM

Robert Waldmann,

That last comment of yours is a semi-coherent mess, but I'll take a stab at responding to it anyway.

"Fred you do not even argue your claim that "Boehner's and Cantor's characterizations are actually less dishonest than your claim on Sunday that McCain has been "declaring war" on Medicare and Social Security,""

Do you deny that Matt was being dishonest when he wrote that McCain had been "declaring war" on Medicare and Social Security? I suppose it's subjective whether you consider Matt's outright lie to be more dishonest than Cantor's and Boehner's deliberate misreading of Obama's statement.

"Instead you attach the integrity of Yglesias"

?

"then move on to claim that, of course Obama thinks Israel is a sore because you think Israel is a sore and he must agree with you."

You just pulled that out of your ass. I made no such argument.

"Note this has nothing to do with B and C's claim, nore with Yglesias's claim. You toss an insult then don't try to back it up (obviously since you can't strong phrasing, hyperbole even, is not more dishonest than constructing a clearly false alleged quote using one quoted word)."

Please tell me English isn't your native language, so I can give you some slack here. By the way, what "insult" did I toss?

Posted by Fred | May 13, 2008 12:14 PM

Re Robert Waldmann

Senator Obama has been criticizing the Bush administration (and implicitly the Clinton administration) for postponing active involvement in Israeli/palestinian peace talks until the last year or two of their terms. Somehow, Senator Obama thinks that if President Obama gets involved from the getgo, a solution can be achieved. My point is that if he really believes this, he is delusional. There are more important issues on the table facing the next president, particularly the situation in Iraq. As I have stated previously, Mr. Olmert (or. Ms Livni), Mr. Maashal, Mr. Haniyeh, and Mr. Abbas could sign a peace treaty tomorrow morning and it would not have the slightest effect on what's happening in Iraq.

Posted by SLC | May 13, 2008 12:27 PM

SLC asserts "The Palestinians demand that the State of Israel agree to go out of business. The Government of Israel refuses to do so."

I think you're a good 40 years behind the times on what "the Palestinians" "DEMAND". One of the intractable problems with the Palestine-Israel situation is that nobody bothers to listen to the Palestinians. Neither the US nor Israel will talk with them. Neither the US nor Israel will negotiate. We have made up our minds, based on 1967 rhetoric, that we know everything about what "the Palestinians" want - excuse me, DEMAND.

To achieve a solution, the past 60 years need to be put to the side. Not forgotten, just de-emphasized. Rather than pick, pick, pick at old scabs, try to look toward the future. And keep an eye on the present situation. Who speaks for Palestine? Who are the (many) current players? Who has kept what parts of the assorted accords that have been agreed to over the last 20-30 years? Who has reneged on their promises?

Israel, however, has no incentive to do this just yet. They're happy with the current situation. It doesn't actually hurt them much, and it keeps the Israeli population on the side of the right wing government. It's that "existentialism" argument.

Will things change, if a Democrat achieves the US Presidency? Maybe not. Is AIPAC going out of business?

Posted by Zandru | May 13, 2008 12:30 PM

In a recently released letter , Albert Einstein noted that the reason SLC is not a putz is that he doesn't have the Power to be so:

From http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080513/wl_uk_afp/britainreligionsciencejewseinstein_080513130210

------------
LONDON (AFP) - Albert Einstein described belief in God as "childish superstition" and said Jews were not the chosen people, in a letter to be sold in London this week, an auctioneer said Tuesday.

The father of relativity, whose previously known views on religion have been more ambivalent and fuelled much discussion, made the comments in response to a philosopher in 1954.

As a Jew himself, Einstein said he had a great affinity with Jewish people but said they "have no different quality for me than all other people".

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.

"No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this," he wrote in the letter written on January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, cited by The Guardian newspaper.

The German-language letter is being sold Thursday by Bloomsbury Auctions in Mayfair after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, said the auction house's managing director Rupert Powell.

In it, the renowned scientist, who declined an invitation to become Israel's second president, rejected the idea that the Jews are God's chosen people.

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions," he said.

"And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people."

And he added: "As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

Posted by Don Williams | May 13, 2008 12:39 PM

Re Don Williams

"As a Jew himself, Einstein said he had a great affinity with Jewish people but said they "have no different quality for me than all other people"."

Mr. Williams fails to inform us that the late Prof. Einstein was a strong supporter of the establishment of the State of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people with whom, as the letter states, he identified. He declined the presidency of that nation on the basis that he was not a politician.

Posted by SLC | May 13, 2008 12:56 PM

In all honesty, I think Obama brought this one on himself. MY is undoubtedly correct in saying,

"Eliding here is the difference between calling Israel, the country, a sore and calling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a sore."

But the problem is that BO didn't himself make that distinction. Check the QA,

*******************
JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America’s reputation overseas?

BO: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable.
************************

Look, I agree with MY's view on what BO meant. But BO simply didn't say that.

It shouldn't come as a big shock to anyone that various media faux-journalists distort the truth. Intentionally.

But given this sorrid state of affairs, BO has to take responsibility in the first instance for the clarity of his own remarks. Otherwise the doo-doo's just going to get deeper.

Posted by justme | May 13, 2008 1:13 PM

"It's a wound, as Obama points out."

You, and Obama, are eliding the points that 1) it's a wound that wouldn't exist if Israel didn't exist;

And all bachelors are unmarried.

2) it wouldn't "infect" our foreign policy if we didn't support Israel. You can argue that we should still support Israel anyway, but it's dishonest to deny that our support of Israel is a drag on our reputation overseas, particularly in the eyes of most of those in the Arab world and the broader Muslim world.

You've worked up a lot of words that are completely beside the point and then huffed and puffed to no effect. You've elided the connection to Obama. He didn't deny anything. You imply that since he didn't go into an encyclopedic treatise that he did. Tell it to the Marines.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 13, 2008 1:49 PM

"The wingnutosphere seems to be counting on the famous low education levels and faith in Republican spokesmen of American Jews. Good luck, guys."

Best, and most trenchant, comment of the thread.

Points out something important about the Republican campaign, too. They're campaigning as if their job was to secure the Republican base. It's not. The super-pro-Israel Jewish faction (and its evangelical cheering section), that might fall for the Boehner-Cantor tripe, is part of the base and is voting R anyway. The rest of the Jewish voting group won't be fooled by this, and this kind of stupid attack won't get McCain any votes from groups that he needs to attract, if he has any hope of winning.

Posted by David in NY | May 13, 2008 2:25 PM

Matt,

Good pointing out the dishonest and silly way Boehner is trying to use these statements.

As for your analysis - I don't know what world you've been living in, but there has been a serious attempt to "solve" this problem starting with the Annapolis Conference. (Just I sidenote- does the use of words like "solve" seem curiously telling to anyone else? It is redolent of the basic liberal naivete that seems to be mounting a resurgence in the modern Democratic party. The idea that every conflict is a problem that can be solved by smart people - them - is one that is so utterly lacking in historical support that it is scarcely worth considering. I would submit a different view - simply put that conflicts occur when human beings choose to kill one another. The reasons for choosing this are many - from the criminally motivated, the economically motivated, the ideologically motivated, morally motivated, and and on and on. Of course the social science approach to conflict is sometimes fruitful, but it is also necessary to deal with real people. There is no chart or graph that can tell us when or if Hamas will be willing to stop killing Israelis, or whether Kim Jong Il intends to live up to his commitments. Ultimately we are dealing with human beings, who can be honest or dishonest, good or evil.)

Somehow you seem to think that Barack can come in there and say some magic words that will somehow end a 60+ year old conflict. If Obama himself believes this, it would be quite hubristic. The same goes for Iran. Does Mr. Obama expect us to believe that he can do what Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush II could not by somehow "solving" our Iran problem? If so, how? Charm?

Posted by Frog Priest | May 13, 2008 2:30 PM

By trying, instead of sitting on his ass, Frog Priest. Conflicts, even protracted ones, do resolve themselves. See Northern Ireland, South Africa. They do a lot better if there is pressure for resolution, and assistance in it. See Northern Ireland, South Africa. In this case, Jimmy Carter tried and got closer, Clinton got really close. Bush has been a big setback, but with some effort, there could be progress.

Posted by David in NY | May 13, 2008 2:38 PM

What do expect the Republicans to do - run on their record? Their record is one of dismal failure on every front - economic, foreign policy, domestic well-being and on and on and on.

The GOP is the political party of abject, total failure.

Posted by The Conservative Deflator | May 13, 2008 2:43 PM

justme, putting the responsibility on Obama for not speaking clearly rather than on Boehner and Cantor for lying requires that you ignore all of his responses to his previous questions in the interview and the rest of his response after the quoted section.

It is impossible for anyone to give speak at length without frequently making statements that could look bad if taken completely out of context. Every politician does it, so when they do so as dishonestly as Boehner and Cantor do here, they need to be called on it.

This fits a pattern of attacks by Republicans that make it particularly obscene when they tried to threaten legal action over the supposed dishonesty of the supposed lack of context given to McCain's "100 years" quote in the DNC's ad.

Posted by tanstaafl | May 13, 2008 2:57 PM

"You've worked up a lot of words that are completely beside the point"

"Beside the point"? This from the genius who noted that "all bachelors are unmarried" and recommended I tell something "to the Marines"?

At least you learned a new word today.

Posted by Fred | May 13, 2008 2:58 PM

At least you learned a new word today.

I wish you'd learned "tautology". Or at least realized that the rest of us had.

As for a substantive point, you still haven't made one. You've shaken your finger at Obama, but you haven't actually shown that he did anything or that what you were ranting about was either germane to the issue or even bad.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 13, 2008 4:11 PM

Mendacity has become an accepted way of talking politics all down the line.

Unfortunately, in modern American conservatism lying has become a lifestyle, especially about motives.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | May 13, 2008 4:45 PM

Two more new words for Jeffy! At least you're exercising your vocabulary today. As for this claim of yours,

"As for a substantive point, you still haven't made one."

Sure I have. You either didn't understand it, ignored it, or were being deliberately obtuse. Here it is again:

"...Obama is being dishonest in denying that Israel is a drag on our reputation overseas. And Cantor and Boehner are being dishonest by implying that they care if Israel is a drag on our reputation overseas. They would both want to continue to support Israel if every other country in the world disliked us for doing so. For that matter, so would Obama (at least until November 4th).

Posted by Fred | May 13, 2008 4:57 PM

SLC repeats another Zionist lie about Einstein. While Einstein did indeed consider himself a "Zionist" - in what I refer to as the "classical Zionist" sense, a la MJ Rosenberg and others - he was not in favor of a Zionist state at the expense of the Palestinian population, although he did feel it necessary to create a Jewish homeland in Israel by peaceful means.

Here are some Einstein quotes about Israel and Zionism:

"Speaking in New York City in 1938, he declared: "I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state... My awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power... I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain."

Indeed, in 1952 he turned down an appeal by Israel's founding prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, that he become the state's second president, following the death of Chaim Weizmann. Einstein argued that he wasn't suited for the job but also that he feared that as president he would "have... to assume moral responsibility for the decisions of others", decisions that might conflict with his conscience."

Alfred M. Lilienthal, in What Price Israel? , recounts that on April 1, 1952, in a message to the Children of Palestine, Inc., Einstein "spoke of the necessity to curb 'a kind of nationalism' which has arisen in Israel 'if only to permit a friendly and fruitful co-existence with the Arabs.'" Lilienthal also relates a personal conversation with Einstein: "Dr Einstein told me that, strangely enough, he had never been a Zionist and had never favored the creation of the State of Israel. Also, he told me of a significant conversation with [Chaim] Weizmann [leader of the World Zionist Organization.] Einstein had asked him: 'What about the Arabs if Palestine were given to the Jews?' And Weizman said: 'What Arabs? They are hardly of any consequence.'"

Letter to the New York Times, December 4, 1948, from Albert Einstein and other prominent Jews, denouncing Menachem Begin, a future prime minister of Israel who is highly regarded by the current ruling Likud Party, as a fascist. After the death of the first president of Israel in 1952, the Israeli government offered the post of president to Einstein. He declined the offer.

New Palestine Party
Visit of Menachem Begin and Aims of Political Movement Discussed

TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:

Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the ""Freedom Party"" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.

The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin’s political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.

Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin’’s behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement.

The public avowals of Begin’’s party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.

Attack on Arab Village

A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants —— 240 men, women, and children —— and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin.

The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party.

Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model.

During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.

The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots.

Discrepancies Seen

The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a ""Leader State"" is the goal.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin’’s efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin.

The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.

(signed)

Isidore Abramowitz, Hannah Arendt, Abraham Brick, Rabbi Jessurun Cardozo, Albert Einstein, Herman Eisen, M.D., Hayim Fineman, M. Gallen, M.D., H.H. Harris, Zelig S. Harris, Sidney Hook, Fred Karush, Bruria Kaufman, Irma L. Lindheim, Nachman Maisel, Symour Melman, Myer D. Mendelson, M.D., Harry M. Orlinsky, Samuel Pitlick, Fritz Rohrlich, Louis P. Rocker, Ruth Sager, Itzhak Sankowsky, I.J. Schoenberg, Samuel Shuman, M. Znger, Irma Wolpe, Stefan Wolpe

New York, Dec. 2, 1948

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 13, 2008 5:21 PM

Re Richard Steven Hack

1. One really must admire the blogs favorite ex-con citing Albert Lilienthal, a predecessor to Norman Finkelstein as a prominent Jewish antisemite. The late and unlamented Mr. Lilienthal has as much credibility as Charles Manson.

2. Citing a letter written in 1938 by Einstein is the hight of stupidity. The situation in 1948 bore no resemblance to the situation in 1938.

3. Citing a letter about Menachem Begin shows that Mr. Hack is a seriously uninformed. Begin was totally disowned by the Government of Israel, particularly Prime Minister Ben Gurion and the Stern Gang which he led was disbanded after the 1948 Arab/Israeli war. Begin wandered in the political wilderness until the late 1970s when he rehabilitated himself. The funniest thing that occurred at the 1992 Madrid conference was when Syrian foreign minister Farouk Sharaa held up a British wanted poster from the 1940s calling for the arrest of then Israeli Prime Minister Shamir. He forgot to mention that the late Egyptian prime ministers Nasser and Sadat were also wanted by the British.

Posted by SLC | May 13, 2008 6:14 PM

2. Citing a letter written in 1938 by Einstein is the hight of stupidity. The situation in 1948 bore no resemblance to the situation in 1938.

SLC, the letter was claimed to be from 1948. Some other statements were from 1938.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | May 13, 2008 6:45 PM

A, Frog Priest, what exactly did Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush II do to solve the problem? How do you know that their solutions were the only solutions available?

Maybe Barack has a different approach. Maybe he can be more persuasive of a salesman selling a new or repackaged peace agreement that both side can agree and live up to. Do you really know or are you going to argue with vague generalities about "human nature" and the implicit intractable evil of Hamas, Iran, and North Korea?

You assume that only the "axis of evil" actors ever negotiate in bad faith. There's plenty of evidence (if you bothered to look around a little) that the US and Israel both have negotiated in bad faith in order to deprive the Palestinian people of their rights and property because it's to their advantage to do so.

Posted by Dr. Morpheus | May 13, 2008 6:47 PM

Re Bengt Larsson

The 1938 quote was from a speech. Tbe 1948 letter was about Menachem Begin, who as I mentioned was disowned by Ben Gurion and banished from the Israeli Government by the latter until his death.

By the way, I wouldn't believe anything that Mr. Lilienthal says about alleged conversations with Einstein or anybody else. He was a god damn fucking liar, along with his pal Rabbi Berger, the founder of the American Council for Judaism. I would compare self hating Jews like Mr. Lilienthal with Uncle Tom Sowell and other self hating black American uncle toms.

Posted by SLC | May 13, 2008 7:53 PM

The notion that Begin's actions were not in accordance with Ben-Gurion's own intentions for the Palestinians is laughable.

Try again, SLC. The fact of the matter is that Einstein deplored what the state of Israel became - a fascist imperialist Nazi-imitator.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 14, 2008 7:07 AM

Candygram to congressmen Boehner and Cantor: American Jews will not vote Republican ... no matter what! Even if Joe Lieberman ran for president as a Republican.

Posted by seethelight | May 14, 2008 11:25 AM

Candygram to congressmen Boehner and Cantor: American Jews will not vote Republican ... no matter what! Even if Joe Lieberman ran for president as a Republican.

Posted by seethelight | May 14, 2008 11:28 AM