Friedman has always been a propagandist -- never a journalist.

It has more to do with you being an a-hol.

GWB and his coterie of criminals are responsible for a lot of chaos and mayhem in the world we now live in, both economic and political.

But to pretend that he invented ignoring the Constitution when it is inconvenient is a pretty myopic stance.

The biggest problem (imo) Americans have is that a great many still believe that the state apparatus can be redeemed if only they elect "a good guy" to President. This is appallingly naive given the reality that the policies of the "good guys" and the "bad guys" (which is which depends on your tribal affiliation, not on what they actually say/do) are within 1 or 2 % of each other. OK, some of the rhetoric changes, some of the time, but there is very little difference in POLICY. Ironically, a LOT of Glenn's recent blogs have been pointing this out: Obama really IS George Bush the Third! And many will act shocked - really, SHOCKED! - at this news, as if it wasn't an American who said "A choice, not an echo".

I know, many here and elsewhere think that because Obama is so obviously smarter and more urbane than GWB that he will make a better President (by "better" they think they mean "more moral") but this is hardly obvious. He is a much smarter liar, a much more convincing liar, a much more polished lair, a much more charismatic lair - and this makes him "better"?

Somehow, I don't think so. GWB didn't invent Executive Orders or signing statements, and guess what? Obama isn't going to outlaw them, or refrain from using them himself. The whole edifice is corrupt, and the only way to get to the top of it as Obama has, is to be corrupt.

To the person who asked about the publicist that was executed at Nuremburg, I think the name was Julius Streicher.

I'll take you at your word. SO...

"But, as I keep repeating, there are definitely two tangoing here."

Its true. Of course. But I think objective people would agree that most reporting is from the Israeli perspective, and literally ignores any Hamas actions other than rocket fire. And ignores Israeli actions that occured before Cast Lead. If your goal is really to illuminate this issue, then why aren't you seeking to add to the understanding of Hamas' motives and actions. Surely, if there are two tangoeing we must understand teh actions of both partners equally.

but strategic attacks on civilians are wrong...are we just going to give up completely on being a force for good in the world?

Yes, and GFY for implying that I ever said anything remotely supporting the ethnic cleansing of Gaza.

I made no such implication. When I was referring to "woo-woo commenters," it had to do with my repeated assertion that there are only two options - others' response was that Israel wants to commit genocide in Gaza. I don't believe that, and don't think it's possible.

If you want to tell me to go fuck myself in the future, that's fine: I'm a big boy and can take it. I kinda prefer bad words to be spelled out.

this is a salon...stop spitting on the floor!

My biggest disappointment of the New Year was to find out that, apparently, Tom Friedman's billionaire wife didn't lose her entire fortune with Madoff.

It was all I requested for Christmas, too.

What fun it would have been to see Tommy Boy actually forced to eat at McDonalds.

I wonder if Friedman can be negotiated with.

Sure. If ALL the Palestinian people in Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, etc., gathered - quietly - and then proceeded --- one-by-one ---to jump off a cliff into the Dead Sea.

Then Friedman, Goldberg, Dershowitz and the other homicidal maniacs (sorry, Pro-Israel intellectuals) would be satisfied.

Uh, here's the beginning of the article I cited, which I was just throwing out there, and hadn't read, oops:

"According to the report, Hamas has agreed to abide by the 2005 agreement which calls for Palestinian Authority forces to man the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt under the supervision of European observers."

Emphasis mine. Now, if my chronology is correct, Hamas was elected at the beginning of 2006, meaning that agreement was with Fatah. The fact that Hamas is letting their bitter rival Fatah onto their turf is a major capitulation, as is the inclusion of infidel European overseers.

And the point of having outsiders at the border crossings is to prevent weapons smuggling, btw. So there's that. I do agree that their agreement could mean any number of things. Nonetheless, this is a major softening of Hamas' stance.

As I said, I hadn't read the article before posting it. Fortunately, it said what I thought it said. I need to do some chores.

Elephant Man

Some questions for you:

1. Is it legal for a Palestinian to own a weapon in Palestine?

2. What army occupies the "occupied territories"? Who mans the checkpoints? Are they Palestinians?

3. Are Israeli settlements--colonies--present in the occupied territories?

4. Are Israeli citizens who live in the occupied lands allowed to carry personal automatic weapons?

5. Where is "the wall" located? Is it built on the border between Israel and Palestine, or is it built within Palestine? (or what remains of Palestine)?

-- casual_observer

Where, and what, exactly, is Palestine? I think Brett Stephens had an idea, in yesterday's Wall Street Journal:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110010259

There is the West Bank, and there is Gaza. If you think that the West Bank and Gaza ought to be freely administered by their own citizens, in peace, and with an almost unimaginably greater level of prosperity and social development than what now exists, I'd be the first to agree with you. Israel would not only agree, Israel would pay for that kind of progress. But it will never happen as long as Hamas and Hezbollah are recruiting suicide bombers, launching rockets and preaching "Death to the Jews." As they do, now.