Wednesday, briefly

You can always count on the AP to fudge the truth: Even though there are videos showing Israeli soldiers being attacked as they rope down onto the deck of the Mavi Marmara, the AP explains it this way in their article about “Flytilla 2″:

Israel has been jittery about large influxes of foreign activists since a naval raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla in May 2010 turned deadly. The Israeli navy and the activists have each accused each other of sparking the bloodshed in which nine Turkish activists were killed.

Sure. Because it’s not like there’s video evidence of the Turks calling for the death of Israelis, or beating up soldiers coming down a rope or anything. Oh. Wait.

Go, Canada: Canada is Israel’s new best friend. That’s great, because Canada is also the home of some pretty nasty pro-Palestinian “activists” that make life awful for Jews on college campuses. Plus, well, they’re going to need all the friends they can get, if Obama wins re-election.

Live by the bomb… Israel is warning Lebanon now that since it has fully integrated Hezbullah into its government, Lebanese government institutions will be fair game in any new war with Israel. Sounds about right to me. There’s also this article about the ground forces preparation Israel is making for the next war with Lebanon. Sounds like the gloves will be off this time.

How’m I doin’? Ed Koch takes on idiot Tom Friedman’s “nonviolent” Palestinian protesters.

Thomas L. Friedman (“A Middle East Twofer,” column, April 4) endorses what he calls “nonviolent resistance by Palestinians” against Israel. He adds that Palestinians need to “accompany every boycott, hunger strike or rock they throw at Israel with a detailed map” delineating their territorial demands.

I was attacked by “nonviolent” Arab rock throwers while touring the old Jewish quarter of Jerusalem in 1991. I needed nine stitches but was fortunate to have suffered only relatively minor injuries. If my attackers’ aim had been a little sharper, I could have lost an eye, or worse.

Friedman is a joke. I can’t believe I ever read anything he wrote with any form of respect. I do so no longer.

This entry was posted in Israel, Lebanon, Media Bias. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Wednesday, briefly

  1. Soccerdad says:

    And it’s not just about Israel. His latest, I’m not Mitt Romney contains these paragraphs.
    And that’s our problem. Romney has embraced the Republican budget drawn up by Representative Paul Ryan that proposes to shrink our long-term structural deficit in a way that not only would make the rich richer and the poor poorer but would deprive the country of the very discretionary spending required to do what we need most: nation-building at home. Sure, Ryan makes deep spending cuts to balance the budget in the long term. If I cut off both my thumbs, I’d also lose weight. But I’d also have a hard time getting another job.
    and
    Said the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: “The president’s budget [is] a step in the right direction on deficit reduction, but not nearly sufficient. The president’s budget would stabilize the debt as a share of the economy through the second half of the decade, but would do so at too high of a level and without the necessary entitlement reforms to bring down the debt over the long-run. … It is highly disappointing that the president didn’t go further in his proposals and offer a plan that is large enough to deal with the nation’s fiscal challenges in the medium and long term.”

    Since he cited this Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CFRB) as an authority favoring President Obama, I was curious what CFRB said about Ryan’s budget plan. Well guess what:

    “This is a bold budget, and Congressman Ryan should be congratulated for
    putting forward structural budget reforms to address our unsustainable debt
    path,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible
    Federal Budget. “However, while the proposal deserves praise for being bold,
    the national discussion has moved beyond just finding a plan with sufficient
    savings to finding one that can generate enough support to move forward.”

    And while CFRB thought that Ryan needed to do more they hoped “… that Congressman Ryan’s proposal will not generate attacks …”

    If you appeal to an authority to support one position, it’s hypocritical to ignore its authority on a different position. CFRB had qualified praise for both the President and Rep. Ryan, though its praise for Ryan was more enthusiastic. Did Friedman think no one would Google CFRB? Or is he just too damn lazy?

Comments are closed.