Hillary Clinton and Barack "World" Obama: Intellectual Dishonesty (as I answer Dan's Hamas question--sort of)

I have not commented much on Obama's choices for his cabinet (for example, his choice for "climate czar" who turns out to have labeled herself as an international socialist). Obama is President, and he is going to get (mostly) the cabinet he wants. That is really as it should be. Obama should have his chance, bad as the results are likely to be for the country. However, some things have come up in this "transition" phase that illustrate the intellectual dishoesty of the left--they hypocrisy and corruption endemic to the left. I am commenting on some of those things.Hillary Clinton, for example, had the nerve to say that it is time to return to a united front on foreign policy ("politics ends at the water's edge"), now that Democrats are totally in power. You can't get any more intellectually dishonest than that. The test of "bipartisanship" is not using it as an excuse to avoid criticism of your own party. The test is supporting the other party, when it is in power, in things like foreign policy. Republicans actually did that with Bill Clinton, on foreign policy (for the most part).. Democrats, including Barack "World" Obama, did not do the same thing with regard to President Bush--instead giving aid and comfort to our enemies. This brings us to Barack "World" Obama, master of intellectual dishonesty and double speak. Remember Obama (the mainstream media routinely forgets yesterday's version, while praising today's version)? This is the man who went to Iraq in the campaign, and "negotiated" with Iraq's leaders as he undermined President Bush. This is the man who made his leftist reputation by demanding that we end the Iraq War in defeat--undermining President Bush on foreign policy. Hillary Clinton's "working together"? Don't be absurd. Obama is now the man who ducked questions on Israel and Gaza by saying "we have one President at a time." If you have stopped laughing at this example of blatant intellectual dishonesty, consider how the comment violated Hillary Clinton's professed idea that "politics should end at the water's edge." Why did Obama not say that he supported President Bush's policy in the Israel/Gaza "crisis", and that no foreign persons (Hamas) should believe that Obama will alter policy once he is President? The answer is that for both Clinton and Obama, this is all a matter of politics, and intellectual dishonesty. Rather than actually backing up President Bush, Obama wanted to leave the idea that he would have a different policy (in case the current one goes wrong, and for domestic and international political reasons). This is hardly abandoning politics "at the wather's edge". The mainstream media, sanctimonious hypocrites all, let these whoppers prettymuch slide by.What is my take on Hamas and Israel (Dan asked that in his comment on my "Happy New Year" entry)? I actaully gave that take in my entry entited "Jews: 'Go Back to the Ovens'". It is obvious that Islamic extremists, for some 60 years (since the establishment of Israel) have used the Palestinians as pawns for polictical purposes. Hamas, and people like them, have utterly ruined the lives of the ordinary Palestinian, and are continuing to do so--sacrificing them--often literally--on the alter as tools to help destroy Israel. I would go further. Islamic extremists are in the process of making the life of the ordinary Muslim a Hell on Earth, to advance their ownn agenda of hatred. Osama bin Laden has supposedly issued another tape suggesting that all Muslims take up the "cuase" of the Platestinian's to help them to "victory". This is the kind of thing that is in the process of destroying Islam in the world today. It is certainly destroying individual Palestinians, individual Muslims, and their children. In that context of Muslim hatred, we have to support Israel (a democarcy, where hatred--even though I am sure it exists--of Islam does not motivate every actioin). Israel has a right to defend itself. As I previoiusly said, conservatives (even the evnagelicals Jews tend to dislike) are more reiable allies in defending that concept, and supporting Israel, than leftists. Will the Gaza action help Israel in the end, or does Israel need a more comprehensive long term strategy (even it that strategy were to be thumbing its nose at the world and taking over Gaza and other adjacent areas permanently)? I am not sure. I am sure that I would not let Iran have nuclear weapons, if I were Israel, no matter what it took--definitely including military strikes. Of course, I think that should be our policy, as well. To regard a "nuclear" Iran as inevitable is to accept putting Israel's very existence at stake for the rest of time. I would argue that a nuclear Iran will put the whole world at much greater risk for the rest of (forseeable) time.