ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Back to Reality for Obama? Not Likely

Larry C Johnson provides a service to the Dems in their nomination process, pointing out that all of the adulation and Obama-gasms from supposedly objective and "hardball" reporters have the unintended consequence of glossing over Obama's questionable ties.

Given that Obama hails from Chicago, one would think that questions regarding corruption and ties to unscrupulous characters would be the first order of business, but when you've got the fever and your leg begins to tingle, you can throw all of the rules out of the window.

Johnson provides examples of three individuals which could cause damage to Obama in the Fall. Here's an excerpt:

The Tony Rezko Problem:

There is a growing body of material in the blogosphere on this issue (looseheadprop has an excellent overview), but the mainstream media has paid little attention and most Americans know nothing of Rezko's bribery and corruption trial. Not yet. But that will change starting February 25, when Rezko goes on trial in Chicago. The best Obama can hope for is an acquittal or mistrial. He cannot deny his longstanding friendship with Rezko. A man who has played a significant role in raising funds for his political campaigns and a man who helped Obama and his wife get the home of their dreams.
[...]
When Rezko is convicted and, the details of the corruption and bribery charges are fleshed out and the public learns that Senator Obama got some of that dirty cash, do you really believe the public won't care that the Democratic nominee for President is involved with a convicted felon? Hell, this is a political attack ad that writes itself.

The William Ayers Problem:

William Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist, though he is normally described as a distinguished education professor. One does not necessarily rule out the other, but he himself acknowledges planting bombs in U.S. Federal buildings. There is now undeniable proof of a longstanding relationship between Barack Obama and William Ayers. We are not talking about two guys who just happened to bump into one another on the street. We are not talking about a secret admirer (Ayers) who quietly sent $200 to an aspiring politician.

No, we are talking about William Ayers hosting a fundraiser for Barack Obama and actively working with him to secure Barack's first electoral victory in Illinois. But wait, there is more. Barack and Ayers also served on the board of the Woods Fund. And they worked together to give money to some other folks, including a group with ties to the PLO.

What makes Ayers so toxic is his own written record equating U.S. Marines with terrorists. Look at the beating that John Kerry took for tossing his medals over the White House fence. Ayers did not toss medals, he threw bombs. Real ones. Bombs that exploded.

Do you think that Republicans will ignore Obama's ties to Ayers? The two were serving on the same board in 2002. We are talking less than six years ago and the record will come out showing some questionable grants by these two characters. William Ayers, in the age of terrorism, will be Barack Obama's Willie Horton.

The Problem of Rashid Khalidi:

So far, the press has paid little attention to Obama's ties to Rashid Khalidi, Middle East Professor at Columbia University and PLO activist.
[...]
But the relationship with Khalidi has not yet received the white hot media attention that tends to occur during the dog days of July and August, when the press needs a story. And guess who helped broker the appearance of Iran's Ahmadinejad last summer at Columbia University? Professor Khalidi.
[...]
Now, which presidential candidate is calling for talks with Iran? You do not have to be Karl Rove or Lee Atwater to figure out how to tie Obama with Ahmadinejad using Obama's friendship with Khalidi.

I don't know what else is out there on Obama. Unfortunately, the worshipful, servile attitude of many Democrats and media personalities so far has hindered a tough look at Obama's friends and associates and his judgment. But that will come. What should concern Democrats keen on taking back the White House is whether or not these issues will be fully vetted before Obama is installed as the candidate. My guess is no.
[...]

I doubt that the MSM will pay much, if any, attention to these issues (or anything other problems) that come up. Obama is too compelling a candidate to the MSM to be foiled by actual corruption and scandal.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Comments (5)
Anonymous said...

So - am I missing what the harm would be in, you know, actually talking with Iran, rather than ignoring them and acting like a petulant child?

St Wendeler said...

So - am I missing what good would be in, you know, actually talking with Iran?

St Wendeler said...

hmmm... seems to me that the last time the US had substantial dealings with Iran, the Dems had a conniption fit and wanted to impeach the President - like petulant children.

Anonymous said...

Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi's Double Standard on Grammar for Jews

by Jonathan Schwartz
Anti-Racist Blog
February 22, 2008
http://antiracistblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/columbia-university-professor-rashid.html

According to a paper published this month in the Middle East Quarterly, Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi thinks different rules of grammar should apply to the Jews than to all the other nations. That's right , grammar.

We know that in Khalidi's opinion the Palestians and everybody else gets a state of their own, except the Jews.

But – grammar? Surely the Jews are as entitled as other peoples to use definite articles. Here's the passage.

Khalidi is also guilty of inconsistent methodology in applying rules of grammar. He often uses "a people" in the ordinary manner, as a near-synonym for nation, writing: "The Palestinians are a people with national rights."[1] Or: "This remarkable book recounts how the Palestinians came to be constituted as a people."[2] He justified the terrorism of the second intifada by arguing that the "violence, which has broken out, has been the natural result of a people desiring its independence"[3] Khalidi misunderstands the phrase "a people" only when discussing the phrase "land without a people."[4]

Khalidi does this in order to claim that those disingenuous early Zionists falsely claimed that Palestine was "empty."

Rashid Khalidi… writes that, "In the early days of the Zionist movement, many of its European supporters—and others—believed that Palestine was empty and sparsely cultivated. This view was widely propagated by some of the movement's leading thinkers and writers, such as Theodore Herzl, Chaim Nachman Bialik, and Max Mandelstamm, with Herzl never even mentioning the Arabs in his famous work, The Jewish State. It was summed up in the widely-propagated Zionist slogan, ‘A land without a people for a people without a land.'"[5]

Khalidi's statement is factually wrong. Rather than check Der Judenstaat, he refers to an academic work that was inaccurate.[6] Herzl mentions the resident population of Palestine, albeit in the context of discussing possible locations for his projected Jewish state. He was prescient in his analysis of the political impact that the inhabitants were likely to have on the Zionist project. Immigration, he explained, "continues till the inevitable moment when the native population feels itself threatened and forces the government to stop a further influx of Jews. Immigration is consequently futile unless we have the sovereign right to continue such immigration."[7] To say that Herzl at the time he wrote Der Judenstaat had little interest in the existing population beyond assessing their probable impact on Zionism is fair. To state that he "never even mentioned" the Arabs of Palestine is untrue. Nor did the phrase "land without a people" ever appear in Herzl's books, letters, or diary.[8]

There is more. It turns out that the phrase "A land without a people for a people without a land" was not a Zionist slogan after all. Just another "fact" invented by Edward Said and the PLO.

[1] Rashid Khalidi, "Observations on the Right of Return," Journal of Palestine Studies, Winter 1992, p. 30.

[2] Rashid Khalidi, jacket blurb for Baruch Kimmerling and Joel S. Migdal, The Palestinian People: A History ( Cambridge : Harvard University Press, 2003).

[3] Rashid Khalidi, "To End the Bloodshed," Christian Century, Nov. 22-29, 2000, p. 1206.

[4] Khalidi, Palestinian Identity, p. 101.

[5] Khalidi, Palestinian Identity, p. 101.

[6] Khalidi relies on Anita Shapira, Land and Power: The Zionist Recourse to Force, 1881-1948 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 41.

[7] Theodore Herzl, The Jewish State, Sylvie d'Avigdor, trans. (London: Nutt, 1896); idem, The Jewish State, Sylvie d'Avigdor, trans. (New York: Dover, 1988), p. 95.

[8] Garfinkle, "On the Origin, Meaning, Use and Abuse of a Phrase," p. 539.

Anonymous said...

Follow the money…see the ties—>research–>>

Obama–>Rezko–>Nadhmi Auchi–>Saddam Hussein & Muammar
al-Gaddafi–>(Pastor Wright, Louis Farrakhan, and Raila
Odinga)–>Obama–>Bill Ayers & Bernadine Dorhn–>Obama–>Rashid
Khalidi–>Obama–>Rezko–>Jabir Herbert
Muhammad–>Farrakhan–>Obama–>

Follow the money…see the ties—>research–>>