Top Obama Adviser Explains Iraq War: Turns Out, It's The Jews' Fault. Again. (Plus: Ha'aretz Political Correspondent’s Pro-Obama Apologism Getting Increasingly Desperate)
First it was Democratic military guru Wes Clark and his disturbingly familiar "New York money people" theory. Some people at the time suggested that he was getting his dual loyalty ideas from tomes of rank anti-Semitism like Protocols. That was an overreaction. It turns out that this is just the way Democratic military experts talk:
Last week, Barack Obama's military adviser and national campaign co-chairman Merrill "Tony" McPeak accused former President Bill Clinton of "using divisive tactics and unfairly trying to question Barack Obama's patriotism." McPeak, a former chief of staff of the Air Force, previously supported Howard Dean and then John Kerry. He has campaigned for Obama and cut commercials claiming that Obama has the "right stuff" to be Commander in Chief. His job is to burnish Obama's image as a guy tough enough to be President... The interviewer asked McPeak: "So where's the problem? State? White House?" McPeak replied: "New York City. Miami. We have a large vote -- vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it." Translation (as if it's needed): Jews -- who put Israel over every American interest -- control America's policy on the Middle East.
Thus does Obama continue his unbroken streak of filling his campaign with high-ranking advisers who are consumed by their burning desire to screw Israel - and failing to appoint a single one who isn't. We don't know of any reason to think that Obama is personally an anti-Semite. But he certainly seems more comfortable around the kind of people who sound like anti-Semites.
Ha'aretz's political correspondent Shmuel Rosner, by the by, seems to have developed a new habit of making awful pro-Obama arguments and choosing particularly absurd pro-Obama headlines. But we held off on concluding that he's totally in the tank for the most anti-Israel campaign evuh because he's historically been reasonably thoughtful and careful. His recent act of defiant pro-Obama pique was definitely suspicious:
However, I think that most of those believing that Obama has a real problem with the Jewish vote are those who want him to have such a problem. They have no way of proving it, and tend to ignore the great promise that's inherent to the Obama candidacy from the narrow Jewish point of view. "A promise no Jewish liberal can ignore".
And now - between his petulant reluctance to write about McPeak...
Another day, another Obama-Israel-Jewish-related-scandal. Aren't you all tired of raising questions about the Obama campaign? I am, but duty calls. Again. A week that started with the good news... will end on a sour note. "
... and his pathetic attempts to apologize for what is essentially an anti-Semitic dual loyalty canard...
So where's the problem? It is right here: "New York City. Miami". The facts are in place, the tone is problematic to say the least: Yes, a lot of Jews live in NY and Miami and most of them support Israel; Yes, Israel is a matter in which the foreign policy establishment does not always have one decisive voice - thank goodness; yes, if it was up to McPeak the policy would have been different. The problem is that his frustration shows. His tone is the tone of an angry man who might be looking for someone to blame and finding it among Jewish Americans. The not-so-subtle hint that American Jews act against the interests of the U.S. (note: this is not an anti-Israel comment. It is targeting a group of Americans). I'm sure Obama would not have approved of such comments. But this interview took place in 2003, and Obama was still barely around.
... and the embarrassing speed with which he posted Obama's "so what if our campaign is filled with anti-Semites" non-apology - well, none of those are particularly trust-engendering.
Oh - and he also went ahead and rushed to change the headline from "Obama advisor blasts 'NY, Miami' for failed peace process" to "Obama: I disagree with aide who blamed 'NY, Miami'". That way the story would be that Obama is against anti-Semitic conspiracy mongering instead of how his staff is filled with, well, anti-Semitic conspiracy mongers. Google, unfortunately for him, doesn't forget:
So yeah - we're starting to suspect that he might not be totally objective.
References:
* MR Has A Question For Democratic Jews: Are You Fucking Retarded? [MR]
* McPeak on Display [American Spectator]
* Obama Draws Line In The Sand: Invading Israel OK But Calling Hillary A Mean Name Is A Firing Offense [MR]
* Top Obama Foreign Policy Adviser: No Seriously, We Are Totally Going To Screw Israel When We Get Into Power [MR]
* Obama's "Pro-Israel Advisers" Don't Actually Exist. As Such. [MR]
* Obama Defenders: What Brzezinski Guy? (Plus: That's Not Even Their Worst Argument) [MR]
* Obama's Foreign Policy Advisers Not Exactly Fans Of The Jewish State (Plus: Brzezinski Snubs Israel After Tete-A-Tete With Assad) [MR]
* Jewish Democrats: Half pro-Clinton, half pro-Obama [Rosner]
* Obama: I disagree with aide who blamed 'NY, Miami' for failed peace talks [Rosner]
Previously:
* Mel Levine's Defense Of Obama: He'll Make Obsessed Anti-Israel Lunatics Love The US. Presumably By Magic.
* Well That's Nice - Obama Discovers That Israel May Be A US Ally
* Obama's Sophistication Is Actually Kind Of Unsophisticated, Incoherent
