Further to the whole idea of whether Obama's package is going to far towards pleasing the GOP, and whether it will be effective in any case, the news from Davos today is interesting on at least two points.

Firstly, the leftwing governments from South America were greeted with respect, even as Hugo Chavez called (with much support) for a radical overhaul of Western capitalism.

Secondly, the Turkish PM stormed out of a session with Israel's President Shimon Peres:

"I do not think I will be coming back to Davos after this because you do not let me speak," the Islamist-rooted prime minister shouted before marching off the stage in front of Peres, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and an elite audience of ministers and international officials at the World Economic Forum.

Erdogan criticised the audience for applauding Peres' emotional defence of Israel's war in Gaza, before the moderator, Washington Post journalist David Ignatius, insisted that the debate had gone overtime.

Given Turkey's importance to Western interests in the Middle East, was it really wise to snub their PM?

Perhaps more importantly, what on earth is David Ignatius doing as a moderator in Davos? Who selected him? Does the USA and Obama really want guys like him on a stage like this?

Bipartisanship is OK if it's the only way to get things done. But there has to be a new broom going right across the floor.

To be fair to the FAUXXXX anchor, the mayor's first answer was not really a direct response to the question he was asked.

But guess what? Neither were Karl Rove's responses to what he was asked by Congress, or Bush's responses to Helen Thomas and so many others, or Cheney's responses to the US public, or Dana Perino's responses to the press pack, yadda yadda,...

If the Dems have finally learned how to play offence, whose fault is that?

(And yes, you pathetic US media hacks, you can take that "play offence" line and run with it to your sad little hearts' content... *sigh* )

Of course the FAUXXX anchor was blind-sided here, but there's no doubt this is great TV. So you gotta ask yourself: where does Rupert Murdoch stand on these things?

Guess what? He could be the world's next big socialist icon if that's what it takes to turn a profit for News.com.

But of course he can't do that if anyone holds him accountable for the past 8 years, right?

Right?

You and your readers really have to take a few moments to appreciate this delightfully brilliant speech by Desmond Tutu in London today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7897206.stm

As an Australian, I urge you all to disseminate it widely. It captures so clearly the rest of the world's sentiment about the current crisis of confidence, the causes thereof, and most importantly the only clear way forward...

I must be an idiot. I waded through 27 pages of stupid comments in the hope of finding something new and interesting on the subject of anthrax investigations, and I've read nothing but tired old stuff re-hashed to death.

Glenn's original post talked about patiently working through the process of investigations. Surely the discussion here should have been about the value of those investigations, people involved, timelines, things to watch out for (especially in relation to problems with the 9-11 Commission) etc.

Glenn's been the only prominent voice repeatedly calling for investigations into these anthrax attacks, and people who value that should support him by taking their personal agendas, sniping, etc somewhere else. If you haven't got something useful to contribute, you don't NEED to comment!

Glenn's comments threads can be educational, but nobody is going to bother reading them if certain regulars keep abusing the hospitality he extends.

Via an excellent Australian-Jewish blogger named Antony Loewenstein (link at sig).

Dear Reader:

As many of you may know, Charles Freeman “has requested that his selection to be Chairman of the National Intelligence Council not proceed.”

What you may not know is that Steven J. Rosen of the Middle East Forum was the person who first brought attention to the problematic nature of Freeman’s appointment, in a February 19 blog titled “Alarming appointment at the CIA.” Within hours, the word was out; and three weeks later Freeman has conceded defeat. Only someone with Steve’s stature and credibility could have made this happen.

Even those who backed the Freeman appointment acknowledge Steve’s leadership in this effort. For example:

* Andrew Sullivan, former editor of The New Republic, calls Steve “the leader of the anti-Freeman brigade.”

* The director of policy for the Israel Policy Forum calls him the “quarterback” of the effort.

* Max Blumenfeld of The Nation Institute calls him “leader of the campaign against Freeman’s appointment.”

I congratulate Steve and am proud of this early achievement by the Forum’s newly created Washington Project.

Yours sincerely,

Daniel Pipes

More interesting URLs at the link, including Ketcham's great piece at Alternet.

He could have chosen not to broach this subject on his blog.

Gawd knows he has enough other hugely controversial themes on his plate, vitally important themes which very, very few other top-level commentators (yeah, I'm looking at YOU Josh Marshall, Arianna, & co) are prepared to take on, for fear of undermining Teh Credibiliity.

But Glenn sees right and wrong as clear as night and day. And doesn't hesitate to wade right in.

As a distant Antipodean who sometimes despairs of the average US citizen's capacity for decency, let me just say: "Good on ya, mate."