New York Times Shows its Yellow Streak Again!

Olmert's attorney's seek to destroy Talansky and Talansky's former nephew, through marriage, writes about what an ingrate Olmert is if not a criminal. (See 1 below.)

Michael O'Shea counts the ways. (See 2 below.)

Brown lays down the law to Iran in his Knesset speech.

The problem is Iran's leadership is deaf but not blind. They do not hear but see continued weakness and appeasement. Iran believes it is leading from strength. This could turn out to be a mis-calculation, of course, but only if the West can get stringer enforceable sanctions through the U.N without Russia blocking them and secondly, they are effective. To be effective takes time and by then Iran could have what they treasure - nuclear capability. (See 3 below.)

An Israeli professor looks at Obama and finds more hope than with McCain. (See 4 below.)

The New York Times rejected an op ed written by McCain. Drudge Report prints it in its entirety. Eventually The Times will fold because it is losing readership and money. (See 5 below.)

Dick


1) OPINION / If Olmert isn't a criminal, he is at least an ingrate
By Joseph Cedar


Morris Talansky was my uncle until he and my aunt divorced more than 10 years ago. Since then, I saw him only briefly at family gatherings once every few years. But before the divorce, Uncle Moish, as we called him, was a dominant and significant figure in my life. I even thought about making a movie based on his character, which I would call "Middleman."

It would be a story about a professional fund-raiser forced to live between the wealthy Jews, the big philanthropists who cleanse their conscience by donating to organizations with lofty goals, and the altruistic visionaries who use the donations to further their noble life projects, which eventually earn them the Israel Prize. Between these extremes is the middleman, the schnorrer - the macher, as Nahum Barnea insists on calling him - but primarily the charismatic man who manages to bring people together and make everyone feel good. This is the man who doesn't get any glory, respect or appreciation, who is forced to do the grunt work that ultimately benefits everyone.

When my former uncle's name was raised in connection to the scandal involving the prime minister, I assumed the media would home in on his colorful personality. I never thought that the prime minister, through his representatives, would try to prove his innocence by cruelly and offensively slandering a man who spent years helping him and donating to him, and became his close friend.

I'm no expert on the nature of the financial relationship between Talansky and the prime minister, and I don't pretend to understand the legal significance of their relationship, if any. But the various media reports about Talansky's cross-examination make it difficult to avoid concluding that even if our prime minister is not a criminal, he is at least an ingrate.

To somewhat counter the national effort to destroy Talansky's name, I would
like to put the fund-raising profession in a different, less shady light, along with the unique talent that made Talansky one of the leading fund-raisers in the Jewish world.

There is almost no institution in Israel that does not subsist, to some degree or another, on donations. Schools, universities, research institutions, yeshivas, hospitals, museums, social projects, cultural centers, public buildings, memorial sites, ideological and political movements, and even the Israel Defense Forces, are at least partly funded by donors who ¬ setting aside generosity, and a desire to improve things for Israel and the Jewish people ¬ get honored for their contributions. They also (mum's the word!) get significant tax benefits.

Behind the scenes of these donations is usually someone who made the match between the philanthropist and the cause. My understanding is that a successful fund-raiser is essentially a talented storyteller who can plumb the depths of the potential donor's soul and understand what will motivate him to open up his checkbook. In other words, a fund-raiser uses a well-told story and his own captivating personality to convince experienced businessmen to hand over their money, by getting them to feel a sense of shared fate with a goal that's bigger and more deserving than their routine business deals.

This appears to be a basic need of people who have money, and apparently, it turns out, a financial compulsion of the society in which we live. Everyone ends up happy. Everyone benefits. And our reality in Israel is a direct result of this relationship.

Morris Talansky dedicated his life to raising money, primarily, though not solely, for Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Jerusalem. He spent nearly his entire life matching up ideas with the money to implement them, matching up the conscience-cleansing of those who give with the missionary zeal of those who receive. Along the way, he has become an expert on the complex relationship between American Jews and Zionism. And he is one of the most interesting, charismatic and generous people I have ever met.

In the Frank Capra movie "It's a Wonderful Life," Jimmy Stewart plays George Bailey, a banker who gets into trouble and, right before he tries to commit suicide, gets a glimpse of how the world would have looked if he didn't exist.

I would have liked to conduct an imaginary tour like this in Jerusalem to demonstrate Morris Talansky's importance in the daily lives of tens of thousands of Israeli citizens, without them being aware of it. The buildings aren't named after him and he's not the one handing out scholarships, but without him, Israel would have been a different place.

I can only imagine that there are other aspects to my former uncle's dealings, and the prime minister's lawyers will apparently make sure we all get to know them in-depth. But before we tread all over Talansky on our way to the prime minister, it's worth stopping to think about the injustice we are causing to he middleman.

2) Let Me Count the Ways
By Michael J. O'Shea

"How do I love thee, Barack Obama?" his media maids and man-servants coo: "Let me count the ways."

* 1. In your toasted anti-Iraq speech of 2002, you proclaimed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction - but has any of us reminded you of that?

* 2. In declaring Saddam armed but not dangerous, have we asked you how that could be?

* 3. You preach that "Iran's President Ahmadinejad's regime is a threat to all of us" - but did we probe into how Ahmadinejad unarmed was a threat while Saddam armed was not?

* 4. When Bill Clinton stated that Saddam "presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere," did we ask what you knew that he didn't?

* 5. When Hillary Clinton stated that Saddam "has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members," did we inquire how he was therefore not a threat?

* 6. When you proclaimed that "Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors," did we point out that Israel was among those neighbors and that Saddam was paying $25,000 to suicide-bombers families so their sons would kill Jews?

* 7. Did we ask how Saddam was no threat to the US when he was firing on American pilots?

* 8. When you said "What I am opposed to is a rash war," did we inquire how it was "rash" to act more than four years after Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act declaring that "it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq"?

* 9. When you waxed about Saddam "that in concert with the international community he can be contained," did we ask how that could be when that same community bribed and conspired and kicked-back to keep Saddam in power and strip all sanctions?

* 10. When you perorated that "even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences," did we ask if that wasn't also true of any new venture - or did Edison, Bell, Carrier, Ford, and Harley and Davidson know exact times, costs, and consequences before they began?

* 11. When you articulated that war in Iraq "will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world," have we asked why then Arab nations are sending ambassadors back to Iraq and forgiving Saddam-era debt?

* 12. When you contended that Iraq would "strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda," have we pointed out that Al Qaeda is being destroyed in Iraq and will be in Afghanistan now that US troops have built a solid ally in Iraq?

* 13. When you argued "Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work," have we asked how they could when inspectors testified that Iraqis repeatedly lied and that none of Iraq's Full, Final, and Complete Declarations to the UN was ever full, final, or complete?

Ah, but then love does indeed blind, and so media maids and man-servants would never ask:

* 1. What Obama would do with a Saddam long freed from sanctions and by now chemically, biologically, and nuclear rearmed as he had long ago pledged?

* 2. How dramatically he would have rebuilt his military flush with $140-a-barrel cash?

* 3. Or would oil be even higher with Saddam reigning, Uday and Qusay squabbling to succeed, and Ahmadinejad racing to have nuclear weapons first?

* 4. How many more Kurds and Shias, along with troublesome Sunnis, now would be dead?

* 5. With Afghanistan alone attacked, would Osama Bin Laden have accepted Saddam's safe haven offer and allied his forces with Saddam now free from sanctions?

* 6. Would Israel survive or would Saddam unleash WMD, solve the Palestinian problem, and rally Arabs behind the new Nebuchadnezzar, emperor of the Middle East?

* 7. How brisk would Saddam's arms export business be - especially to counter nuclear-armed Libya and still hustling A.Q. Kahn?

Countless indeed are the ways the press loves Barack, and why not? Saddam was no threat. And neither is Obama.

3) Brown: Iran must suspend its nuclear program or face isolation


The United Kingdom is prepared to impose new sanctions that will isolate Iran if it does not abandon its nuclear program and cease threatening Israel, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown warned Monday during his Knesset address - the first by an acting British prime minister.


"We say with one voice: It is totally abhorrent for the president of Iran to call for Israel to be wiped from the map of the world," he said. "Our country will continue to lead, with the United States and our European partners, in our determination to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

"To those who question Israel's very right to exist, and threaten the lives of its citizens through terror we say: The people of Israel have a right to live here, to live freely and to live in security."

Britain, he asserted, "stand[s] ready to lead in taking further sanctions and will ask the whole international community to join us."


"Iran has a clear choice to make: Suspend its nuclear weapons program and accept our offer of negotiations or face growing isolation and the collective response, not just of one nation, but of all nations around the world," Brown added.

The prime minister told the Knesset that he believed a "hard-won and lasting peace" between Israel and the Palestinians "is within [Israel's] grasp," and declared his support for a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as a "capital for both."

Earlier in the speech the prime minister declared that Britain was "a true friend" of Israel, "a friend of difficult times as well as in good times." Brown mentioned his father, a minister who had visited Israel numerous times and "had a deep and lifelong affection for Israel."

4) OBAMA RECONSIDERED: AN ISRAELI VIEW
Prof. Gerald M. Steinberg



Presidential election campaigns in the United States are always closely watched in Israel, and this is particularly the case in 2008. The conventional wisdom is that Obama, like Jimmy Carter, is inexperienced and naïve, and that he has been influenced by radical Palestinian friends like Rashid Khalidi (the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University), anti-Israel advisors like Samantha Power and Zbigniew Bzrezinski, and by his ex-pastor, Jeremiah Wright, a supporter of Louis Farrakhan. In contrast, McCain is viewed as a realist who understands the complexities of the Middle East, including Iran’s efforts to dominate the region through nuclear weapons, and is prepared to respond effectively.

But Obama has provided some reasons to re-examine this image, while also introducing a new and important factor that works in his favor. Like others around the world, Israelis have observed and been impacted by the decline of American power in recent years. Intense internal divisions (red vs. blue states) and President Bush’s stumbling appearances severely undermined Washington’s credibility and influence, from Venezuela to Pakistan. Major mistakes in Iraq allowed the Iranian regime to become a leading force in the Middle East, and the faith-based promotion of instant democracy legitimized Hamas, and weakened the military elite that provides stability in Egypt. Power projection resulting from economic success has disintegrated as the dollar and Wall Street plummeted, and America-led alliances have failed to defeat Al Qaida or the Taliban. The perception of the US as a weak and fading world power has also reduced Israel’s own deterrence, and emboldened its enemies.

To restore American power and, in its wake, Israeli security and Middle East stability, the next president must first unify the American public, and inspire them to take the steps necessary to repair their economy, including reducing the huge gap between rich and poor, and improving education. A president who projects confidence, intelligence, and empathy can lead a long-overdue transformation, and here, Obama has the advantage.

History has shown that these steps will also have a major impact in improving America’s ability to act effectively around the world. In 1961, John F. Kennedy’s stirring speeches projected a confident superpower, sure of its moral mandate and ready to “bear any burden” to defend the cause of freedom. In practice, the inexperience of Kennedy and his advisors led to serious policy challenges, including the 1962 nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union, but America emerged as the undisputed leader and inspiration for citizens in many other countries.

The Vietnam War, the darkness of the Nixon years, and Jimmy Carter’s “malaise” undermined this power, but in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan’s clear message and actions restored America’s position as the world leader, and sped the demise of the Soviet empire. The economy boomed, and further increased Washington’s power. As the close ally of the US, Israel’s deterrence capabilities also benefited from this recovery.

On this score, Obama's energy and racial background can unite and inspire Americans, and his election will revive the glow of American democracy around the world. His speeches and Q&A responses display a quick intelligence and a sharp wit, and his body language is consistent with the words. In this context, Obama has written about his admiration for Reagan – the quintessential Republican and Neo-conservative. However, to convince Israelis, the Democratic candidate must also demonstrate that he can invoke a credible deterrent, and make the difficult calls, including the use of force, when required. Obama’s comments on Iraq, including a pledge to end the war, come across as simplistic, as did the confused statements on the very complex issue of Jerusalem. In his upcoming visit to the region, Israelis will be looking for signs that beyond inspirational speeches and self-confidence, Obama can also deal with the threats on the ground.

In contrast, McCain’s policies, including threats to use of America’s military power to defend freedom, are more credible than Obama’s, and his record is consistent and substantive. On Iraq, as on many other difficult issues, McCain does not present thin hopes of a quick solution which will allow America to disengage and leave a stable government. But McCain’s personality and rhetoric do not inspire, and he will be seen by many both inside the U.S. and from overseas as a continuation of the Bush era.

These dimensions, taken together, make for a difficult choice for Americans, while Israelis watch with more than usual interest. If the result produces a stronger America, this should also benefit other democracies around the world, including Israel.

Prof. Gerald M. Steinberg is executive director of NGO Monitor in Jerusalem, and chairs the Political Science department at Bar Ilan University, in Israel.

5) NYT REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; SHOULD 'MIRROR' OBAMA


An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.

'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.'

MORE

In McCain's submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: 'I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it... if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.'

NYT's Shipley advised McCain to try again: 'I'd be pleased, though, to look at another draft.'

[Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter.]

MORE

A top McCain source claims the paper simply does not agree with the senator's Iraq policy, and wants him to change it, not "re-work the draft."

McCain writes in the rejected essay: 'Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. 'I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,' he said on January 10, 2007. 'In fact, I think it will do the reverse.'

MORE

Shipley, who is on vacation this week, explained his decision not to run the editorial.

'The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.'

Shipley continues: 'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.'

Developing...



The DRUDGE REPORT presents the McCain editorial in its submitted form:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.