website statistics

Archive for the 'Middle East' Category

An Op-Ed We Just Might Blog

Published by William Beutler on July 30, 2007 in 9/11 Attacks, Blog Fights, Charts and Graphs, Iraq, Leftosphere vs. Rightosphere, Middle East, National Security, New York Times, Terrorism and Tough Crowd. 2 Comments

Memeorandum is not my homepage, although it might as well be — if you want to know what’s going on in the political blogosphere right now, it beats the pants off Technorati or Google’s BlogSearch. Normally here I’d say something about its impressive signal-to-noise ratio, but the fact is, there’s no noise. (On sister site Techmeme once, I saw a weeks-old story linked once. Once.)

It’s good enough that I tend to think that just by eyeballing it you can tell how big a particular story is. If that’s the case, then the Michael O’Hanlon/Kenneth Pollack op-ed in today’s New York Times may be the most talked-about newspaper article this year, at least:

Michael O'Hanlon-Kenneth Pollack opinion piece in the NYT, "A War We Just Might Win"

Unlike many, perhaps most, stories listed by Memeorandum this one attracted attention from both the pro-war/conservative/righty bloggers as well as the anti-war/progressive/lefty bloggers. If you’ve read the op-ed, it’s not hard to see why. O’Hanlon and Pollack both supported the Iraq war at the outset — the latter expressly advocating it in an influential book — but changed their minds as the war continued and the rebuilding project went awry. Nowadays the right is grateful for any sign that the war might be winnable, especially if it comes from Democratic-aligned intellectuals, especially if it runs on the New York Times’ left-leaning op-ed page. Meanwhile, the left has at least as much invested in ending the very same war that the right wishes to continue, in discrediting Pollack and O’Hanlon’s work, by pointing out inconsistencies and oversights, not to mention disputing their anti-war credentials.

It is not, however, an even split.

So who wins this battle of wills? Well, if you trust Memeorandum creator Gabe Rivera’s secret sauce, and you trust my count (I’ve included the complete breakdown after the jump, if you’re feeling argumentative), and we focus on this iteration of the page (there were others), several more large blogs of the right hopped on this story than blogs of the left tried to burst it like a bubble: 37 to 18, with 10 online newspaper items and non-aligned bloggers making up the oft-overlooked third leg of the blogospheric debate. Still, take this with a grain of salt — The Huffington Post has more traffic than many of these blogs put together, while righty traffic leader Instapundit linked it approvingly, but as usual offered too little commentary to make the cut. And in the course of writing this, I have seen more than a few perfectly major blogs not linked here — but I still think it’s a pretty good representation.

If there’s nothing else to be said here, it’s a fitting story to capture (political) blogosphere-wide attention — the rightosphere came to be after 9/11 and to support war on terrorism, of which Iraq is consdidered a piece, while the leftosphere was built around opposition to the invasion, and frustration with moderate liberals who supported it — like, say, Kenneth Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon.

Continue reading ‘An Op-Ed We Just Might Blog’

Obama: Stealth Muslim!

Published by Olly Ruff on December 30, 2006 in Barack Obama, Internecine Battles, Middle East, Religion, Rhetoric and White House '08. 19 Comments

So, Barack Obama’s middle name happens to be Hussein, and this fact has been slowly working its way into general media consciousness for a few months now — most notably when Republican strategist Ed Rogers began pointedly mentioning it on “Hardball.” On December 18, plucky sub-Coulter Debbie Schlussel took this insinuation to its logical conclusion:

…is a man who Muslims think is a Muslim, who feels some sort of psychological need to prove himself to his absent Muslim father, and who is now moving in the direction of his father’s heritage, a man we want as President when we are fighting the war of our lives against Islam?
Absolutely the most charitable interpretation of this is that Schlussel believes Obama should, instead of pursuing a career in politics, be parachuted in behind enemy lines to work as some sort of “undercover Muslim.” However, she continues:
Where will his loyalties be?
By this logic, one would presume that Schlussel isn’t too happy about Obama being a Senator, never mind holding any higher office. After all, the man’s father was a Muslim at one point in his life, for crying out loud!

Although the comment thread at Schlussel’s original post has continued to thrive, response over the last couple of weeks has not been disproportionate; at any rate, it has not been as disproportionate as I would have liked. Media Matters had a field day, as they tend to do when people say such transcendentally stupid things, and responses on the right ranged from pained to exasperated to really exasperated to really, really exasperated. The angelically beaming Brendan Nyhan points out the comparison with anti-Catholic suspicions of JFK (although really this makes even less sense, as JFK was at least Catholic), following up an interesting earlier post covering some more whimsical sniping about the size of Obama’s ears.

The measure of a presidential campaign is, in large part, how it deals with this sort of thing. (If we ever hear an official statement from the Obama camp regarding the candidate’s ears, then he’s toast.) Schlussel’s slur, at once serious and deeply non-serious, is a gift to a talented politican.

If I were working for Obama, I’d be looking for an excuse to make the “Hussein” non-issue into a signature moment, preferably sometime after the New Year (and after the execution of Saddam is no longer a story). A judiciously crafted public response could turn out to be an enduring image of a candidate calling for tolerance in the face of hysteria; unfortunately, it could also turn out to be an enduring spectacle of an otherwise dignified and serious man shouting at people on the internet. So, to avoid the latter possibility, I’d be looking around for someone other than Ed Rogers to raise the story’s profile in the old media, and I’d be wondering: how long has it been since Tom Tancredo did any bad ethnic humor in public?

Can someone in public life make sure he sees a copy of this Schlussel thing? Hopefully he won’t notice that “Schlussel” is a suspiciously foreign-sounding name.

Bolton Resigns, Bloggers Resigned

Published by William Beutler on December 4, 2006 in Foreign Policy, George W. Bush, Iran, Leftosphere vs. Rightosphere, Middle East and National Security. 0 Comments

The big news this morning is that President Bush has accepted U.N. Ambassador John Bolton’s letter of resignation. As many have pointed out, this development is no great surprise — as Martini Republic put it, “This time it’s not to spend more time with the family. It’s for want of votes.”

In one sense, the reaction from the blogosphere is predictable — many a conservative blogger is calling this a “sad day” for the U.S., while the left is saying “good riddance” — Firedoglake has even posted a YouTube video of the Peanuts kids dancing.

United Nations building at Turtle BayWhat exactly Bolton has done wrong while serving as ambassador is not terribly clear; the knock against him seems to remain his brusque manner and outspoken disdain for the institution, as it was before his recess appointment, which is an issue itself. But nor is it clear what Bolton might get done that another U.N. Ambassador could not — and I think anyone would be hard-pressed to single out anything meaningful he has accomplished. One pro-Bolton blogger tried to do just that, but if the list doesn’t put you to sleep, you may find some irony in a conservative citing U.N. resolutions as “accomplishments.”

The theme of futility can be found in on both sides of the political divide. Here’s American Footprints, arguing that this is why Bolton was the wrong pick in the first place:

Bolton has been consistently ineffective in terms of achieving desired objectives, and most parties (including his cohorts in the Bush administration) prefer to circumvent his involvement rather than invite to the table. From forging beneficial arrangements with Libya, to advancing the non-proliferation regime, it has proven easier to get things done without him around.

At A Blog For All, Lawhawk recognizes the fact that Bolton has changed little, but gives him credit just for trying:

The ambassador position is not meant to advance the UN position in the US, but vice versa. Bolton understood this, and this meant tackling the issues of rampant corruption in the Secretariat and pushing for action on Darfur and other human rights crises. It meant standing up for the rights of our allies, including Israel that came under constant attack from Islamic terrorist groups, and the UN General Assembly instead sought to limit Israel’s response. Bolton tried to deal with Darfur, and ran into roadblocks in the form of China and Russia. The same thing happened on the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, which continues to proceed at full speed.

As the headline of this post indicates, the general atmosphere, at least on the right, is one of disappointed acceptance. Perhaps the most succinct is Allahpundit at Hot Air:

Not a surprise, really. Bad things happen when you lose your majority.

But there are a few on both sides who badly overstate the importance of this development. On the left, we have Middle Earth Journal calling Bolton a “national disaster for the country.” But the clear winner of this dubious contest is Macsmind, on the right, who writes:

Expected, but simply a foretaste of what danger the Democratic Party will be putting the country in in the next two years. … As for that ass-clown Rino Lincoln Chafee, if there were a death penalty for being a moral coward I would happily throw the switch.

Wow. If there was a death penalty for being a moral coward, the first order of business would have to be be removing cowardice from the list of capital crimes. Also, I’m not sure that “cowardice” best describes Chafee’s opposition to Bolton — is “obstinacy” not enough?

But back to the point — what danger does he refer to? I assume he means the Iranian nuclear program, and a nuclear Iran would indeed be a dangerous development. But there’s a lot more to it than John Bolton. Other than the fact that he currently occupies the ambassador position, why is he our last hope? Assuming Iran can be stopped at the United Nations, that is — isn’t the problem with the U.N. supposed to be that it’s ineffective?

It is possible that Bolton’s known dislike for the U.N. hampered his ability to work with other ambassadors and effect change, though the list of resolutions linked above indicates they can at least stand to be in the same room together. It’s also possible that U.N. incompetence and corruption simply cannot be overcome, or at least couldn’t in the last two years. As we try to advance our interests in the organization, so do fairweather friends such as China, Russia, France and non-friends such as Venezuela and, of course, Iran. Shouldn’t we expect a stalemate?

Whether Bolton was good for the country or bad for the country I don’t know enough to say. But one ambassador — let alone the Walrus himself — is not the difference between success (however that’s defined) and failure (which the U.N. seems quite good at).

Photo credit: This site.

Defending The Kossacks

Published by William Beutler on July 31, 2006 in Comment Sections, Democrats, Middle East and Netroots. 6 Comments

Tonight at NRO’s The Corner, Byron York reports that the NRSC is sending out a press release holding MT SEN Dem nominee Jon Tester responsible for a truly crazed Daily Kos diary offering such incoherent gems as: “‘SCREW YOU, ISRAEL’!!!!!!!”

This is not the first NRSC release publicizing the netroots’ strong and early support for Tester, but it is the first one conceivably worth getting worked up about. And worked up they are, or pretend to be:

Jon Tester’s campaign website links to ‘Daily Kos,’ a radical left-wing web site. The editor of ‘Daily Kos’ has consistently praised Tester and even contributed to his campaign. The hateful rhetoric on ‘Daily Kos’ isn’t fit for a campaign for U.S. Senate, but sadly, Jon Tester has refrained from condemning it.

Yes, Tester’s site links to Daily Kos, as do untold thousands of blogs. And Daily Kos has untold thousands of pages, probably hundreds of new ones each day. And this is one post I’m sure Greenwald and Patterico (let alone Moulitsas and Tester) could agree to condemn, if they even knew it was there.

But it so happens that the Kossacks themselves did care to denounce this post. In fact, all but one of the 50 commenters did, and that was a digression about church and state. Other users appropriately tagged it a “Troll Diary,” with some responding angrily and others just making fun of it. Did the NRSC read this far? Would it have stopped them from sending out the release if they had?

And just how vital a member of the Daily Kos community is White on Black, the alleged troll in question? First of all, the account was registered only in the last week or so; we know this because the telltale user ID number is in the mid-94,000s. In that time he has posted 16 comments, all but two of which link to his four diaries. And here’s a brief rundown on them:

  • His first post, dated two Sundays ago, asserting that “Sadaam [sic] in 1990 needed the ports of kuwait.” No troll rating, but only 8 comments and no support.
  • Another spittle-flecked diatribe claiming the U.S. “betrayed Sadaam” [sic (again)], subsequently troll-rated.
  • A rant giving “credit to Syria and Iran for staying out of this fight,” which rated one comment and a “Troll Diary” tag.
  • The diary the NRSC apparently holds up as representative of dKos as a whole.

And here is a typical example of White on Black’s comment section contributions:

I’ve said this before! I am handicapped from an unfortunate accident in 2001 and have only one good hand and one finger to type with. It is hard and not the easiest thing for me to do,-typing. Is that all you kmow how to do is pick on people. I feel very sorry for you. You sound more handicapped in so many more ways than I am.

It’s impossible to tell what White on Black’s motivations really are, or if he is really a he, but I’d wager that he prefers Conrad Burns be returned to Washington this fall, and not Jon Tester. If nothing else, the NRSC has fallen for a prank.

To be sure, there are certainly posts to be found at Daily Kos that are highly unrepresentative, to say the least, of the average American or of the Democratic party’s desired image — and by actual members of the community. Linking the Bush family to Hitler? Check. Republicans-hate-democracy conspiracy theories? Check. Committed non-support of Israel? Check.

The upshot is that there probably is enough borderline anti-Americanism on the site to be a political problem, even if those are minority views. It’s hard to believe any reporter working for a daily paper would bother picking up this offering from the NRSC, but as more these releases go out, they’re going to have an impact.

York is right when he advises: “Look for more of this,” meaning more GOP groups tying Dem candidates to the unsavory views found on liberal blogs. Lord knows there are times when a candidate really should distance themselves from a particular blog. But this isn’t one of them.

Opportunity Knocks

Published by William Beutler on July 31, 2006 in Foreign Policy, George W. Bush, Middle East and Washington Post. 0 Comments

Over the weekend, the Washington Post’s Peter Baker sought out Council on Foreign Relations president Richard Haass’s response to Bush’s “public optimism” re: the Two Weeks and Counting War on the eastern end of the Meditteranean. Apparently Bush used the word “opportunity”; Haass retorts as only a former State Dept. official can:

“An opportunity? Lord, spare me. I don’t laugh a lot. That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard in a long time. If this is an opportunity, what’s Iraq? A once-in-a-lifetime chance?”
Haas literally wrote the opportunity book on U.S. foreign policy. His title? “The Opportunity.”

But Can They Agree To Agree?

Published by William Beutler on July 25, 2006 in Blog Fights, Comment Sections and Middle East. 0 Comments

Jeff Goldstein is absolutely right about this appalling post at BooMan Tribune.

But it also merits pointing out that a majority of the comments to that appalling post are absolutely right, as well.

P.S. Not all of them, of course.