I admit to not wanting to believe my eyes and ears, but Russia is a nightmare and I can’t ignore it any longer.

Now the Ophtalmologist from Damascus is playing footsie with them:

Syria raised the prospect yesterday of having Russian missiles on its soil, sparking fears of a new Cold War in the Middle East. President Assad said as he arrived in Moscow to clinch a series of military agreements: “We are ready to co-operate with Russia in any project that can strengthen its security.”

I was kinda hoping that the Israelis were trying to peel Syria away from its embrace of various evildoers after Damascus was softened up by the Mugniyeh assassination and the obliteration of the nuclear facility (and there was also the recent assassination of his right-hand man).

Oh well! I guess no one is worried about the Middle East anymore now that Russia’s back on the map and outta control, man.

Tonight the BBC reported (and you can see it in this piece too) that Russia threatened to attack Poland with nuclear weapons!

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice travelled to Warsaw for the ceremony, after 18 months of negotiations.

The deal has angered Russia, which has warned the base could become a target for a nuclear strike.

Washington says the system will protect the US and much of Europe against missile attacks from “rogue elements” in the Middle East such as Iran.

And what do the Poles say?

Before the conflict in Georgia there was a reasonable amount of popular opposition in Poland to the missile defence deal.

But new surveys show that for the first time a majority of Poles support it, with 65% expressing fear of Russia.

Stars are fans, too:

Kobe [Bryant] took a moment to talk to NBC about how exciting it was to watch Phelps and how he hopes to share in the gold medal winning. While NBC showed footage of LeBron and Kobe cheering the race, Kobe gushed, “Me and LeBron both just felt like fans for a while. It was incredible.”

Yep, the thrill of losing yourself is incredible.

TheEgyptian Sandmonkey is even snarkier than Gawker:

You know, when he first showed up in the political scene, everybody in the democratic party called him the second coming of Bill Clinton. I guess they never knew how accurate they really were. Boy was I surprised. Mr. My dad worked in a windmill and I have a dead so and a cancer stricken wife is phony baloney. Who knew? …

Our boy cheated on his cancer-stricken wife. No wonder he was talking about two Americas, he was sleeping in two bedrooms, one in each America. But before you feel bad for his wife, please take a minute and chill. Don’t think she is a victim. Ok, so she has cancer, that makes her a cancer victim, but come on, u get the idea. She knew of the affair in 2006, and still supported his running for office in 2008, …

Alas, too bad, I always liked Edwards (I like my politicians the way I like my lawyers- scummy, fake, manipulative and pretty. Hallo, I did endorse Obama, people. That should tell you something) and the nice little image of the American dream realized that he and his wife have presented to us so well. No longer will women lament how they never got a man this decent, who is attractive, young-looking and a millionaire, and yet won’t cheat on his old fat wife. They once again got their fantasy shattered and will continue to believe that we are all the same. Thanks John, you dick, for ruining even that for us. Now go chase an ambulance, you will need the money, having a new-born baby to raise that you probably hate now and everything. Enjoy.

Poor tortured Philip Weiss is trying to figure out if the attacks on the “Lobby” and pro-Israel Jews and Jewish neocons that he peddles on his blog are good for the Jews or bad for the Jews [e.a.]:

It’s true there are a lot of antisemites on my side of the fence, I can’t deny that. They show up in my comment section, and Richard Witty has told me that David Duke posts some of my posts.

Two years ago Tony Kushner said it gave him angst to speak out on the Israel/Palestinian issue in the noble way that he has for two reasons, because a lot of Jews were screaming at him that he was a terrible person, and of course you don’t always know who’s right; and also, because he didn’t want to be giving comfort to antisemites [an admirable sentiment, no? --ed.]

I don’t know what to do about it and frankly I don’t know how much to care.

Well, at least he’s honest about it …for a moment. He doesn’t actually care about the impact of his writings. And then he rationalizes his obsessive anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist screeds as a professional interest:

The chief issue here is journalistic. What is true and new and important? That’s your charge as a journalist.

Okay, dude—and what about your charge as, you know, a human being? one who attracts nasty, unapologetic anti-Semites to your site?

Weiss is still trying to work it out. While he works his head further up his ass, convinced that American Jews hold too much power, you may be interested to hear the opinion of a German journalist, Henryk Broder, who addressed the problem recently in a colloquium on anti-Semitism that took place in Germany, where they know a thing or two about the phenomenon.

And Broder suggests that we stop thinking in terms of the past and thing about the present—and the future [e.a.]:

[A]nti-Semitism is not a matter of a prejudice, but rather of a sort of resentment. …The distinction between a prejudice and a resentment is as follows: a prejudice concerns a person’s behavior; a resentment concerns that person’s very existence. Anti-Semitism is a resentment. The anti-Semite does not begrudge the Jew how he is or what he does, but that he is at all. The anti-Semite takes offense as much at the Jew’s attempts to assimilate as at his self-marginalization. Rich Jews are exploiters; poor Jews are freeloaders. Smart Jews are arrogant and dumb Jews — and, yes, there are also dumb Jews — are a disgrace to Jewry. The anti-Semite blames Jews in principle for everything and its opposite. That is why there is no point in trying to debate anti-Semites or in wanting to convince them of the absurdity of their views. One has to marginalize anti-Semites: to isolate them in a sort of social quarantine. Society must make clear that it disdains both anti-Semitism and anti-Semites: just as it disdains parents beating their children and rape — including spousal rape — even though it well knows that it cannot monitor everything that transpires behind closed doors.

Well, Philip Weiss certainly doesn’t disdain intolerant, blinkered anti-Semites. He bends over backward to understand them:

Giraldi probably brings a little ethnic resentment to it, I read that in some of the lines that Pollak quotes. Not good, not very spiritually evolved. But is ethnic resentment in and of itself criminal or does it constitute hate speech?

Neither. It is a priori resentment, and nurturing it does not promote understanding between people or progress on social issues.

Broder has much to say on the relationship between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, too, and you should read his whole address. But I’ll close with the kicker:

The modern anti-Semite pays tribute to Jews who have been dead for 60 years, but he resents it when living Jews take measures to defend themselves.

David Mamet, who has a place of honor on my blog, wrote this in the Forward (no longer available in the archives but still available here) long ago [e.a.]:

Assimilated Western Jews say, “I don’t like this Sharon,” as if to refer to the prime minister simply as “Sharon” were to over-commit themselves. They are like the office assistant raised to executive status who immediately forgets how to use the fax machine. “This Sharon” indeed. Well, there are all sorts of Jews. One dichotomy is between the Real and the Imaginary. Imaginary Jews are the delight of the world. They include Anne Frank, Janusz Korczak, the Warsaw Ghetto fighters and the movie stars in “Exodus.” These Jews delight the world in their willingness to die heroically as a form of entertainment. The plight of actual Jews, however, has traditionally been more problematic, and paradoxically, those same folk who weep at “Sophie’s Choice,” sniff at the State of Israel.

Here, in Israel, are actual Jews, fighting for their country, against both terror and misthought public opinion, as well as disgracefully biased and, indeed, fraudulent reporting. Here are people courageously going about their lives, in that which, sad to say, were it not a Jewish state, would, in its steadfastness, in its reserve, in its courage, rightly be the pride of the Western world. This Western world is, I think, deeply confused between the real and the imaginary. All of us moviegoers, who awarded ourselves the mantle of humanity for our tears at “The Diary of Anne Frank” ? we owe a debt to the Jews. We do not owe this debt out of any “Unwritten Ordinance of Humanitarianism” but from a personal accountability. Having eaten the dessert, cheap sentiment, it is time to eat the broccoli. If you love the Jews as victims, but detest our right to statehood, might you not ask yourself “why?” That is your debt to the Jews.

Martin Kramer unearths the mysterious role of Persia scholar Ann Lambton, who recently died at the age of 96, in the 1953 ousting of Mohammed Mossadegh:

Her obituaries tell some of her remarkable story as a pioneering scholar and a formidable personality. They are also interesting for what they omit, regarding her role in the idea of removing Mohammad Mossadegh from power in Iran.

The Independent obit says nothing. The Times obit makes an all-too-brief allusion: “She was consulted by British officials on developments in Irano-British relations, especially during the crisis in 1951 when Iran’s Prime Minister, Muhammad Mussadiq, caused a furore by nationalising British oil interests in Iran.” Yet we are not told exactly what she proposed in these consultations. The Telegraph is more explicit: “Lambton’s insights into the strengths and weaknesses of Iran’s then prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, proved a valuable aid to Britain’s eventual success, in concert with America, in precipitating an end to Mossadegh’s premiership and in ensuring a continued, though reduced, British share in Iran’s oil production.” Yet we are not told just how she imparted these “insights,” or why they were “valuable.” The Guardian quotes a historian as saying her advice “marked the beginnings” of the 1953 coup, but does not explain what she advised or how she had such a profound effect. So what is the fuller story behind these allusions?

Read the whole thing. Kramer sets up his inescapable conclusion nicely:

The present incumbents in power in Iran are careful to shut out Western Orientalists, not because they fear the situation in Iran will be misrepresented but because it might be accurately represented, exposing the weaknesses of their regime. The historian Ervand Abrahamian, mentioning Lambton (and Zaehner), writes that it should not be surprising that the coup “gave rise to conspiracy theories [among Iranians], including cloak and dagger stories of Orientalist professors moonlighting as spies, forgers, and even assassins. Reality—in this case—was stranger than fiction.” The reality is that it isn’t easy to hide one’s vulnerabilities from an intimate stranger such as Lambton. The fear of Orientalist professors, both there and here, has never been that they might get things wrong, but that they are very likely to get them right.

There are many ways to know thine “enemy,” and none is better than to live in his midst.

Gawker is already snarking about Michael Phelps, natch (with help from those who know Phelps).

That was fast! Michael Phelps was a rocking gold-medal winner, then a record-breaking champion athletic God, then the $100 million endorsement kingpin, then a celebrity sex symbol. The whole process took maybe a week. Now? …

Bloggers aren’t the only ones slamming Phelps in public. Here’s the stone-cold way fellow 2008 Olympian swimmer Amanda Beard reacted to rumors that she hooked up with him:

“Eww, that’s nasty… I have never, ever hooked up with Michael Phelps,” Beard said …

Meanwhile, the dorky, unsophisticated TV-viewing audience loves him:

The most jaw-dropping statistic: The night Michael Phelps won his eighth gold medal was the most viewed Saturday night program (31.1 million) on NBC since 1990. The night peaked at 39.9 million viewers during the 4 X 100 medley relay. NBC promised advertisers a 14.5 primetime rating, according to SportsBusiness Journal’s John Ourand. It will get that even with the usual second-week tune-out.

Who doesn’t love a winner?

Moe, that’s who—that S.I. cover is such a retread, she says, missing the point: that normal people (that is: people who don’t obsessively read Gawker in order to confirm that they’re right to envy and hate anyone who is successful) love winners…at least for a while.

David Gergen can always be trusted to spout the conventional Beltway wisdom, and if that CW is right, Obama is in trouble. He didn’t win over any new converts during his talk with “Pastor Rick,” says Gergen. Also, McCain’s campaign is picking up [e.a.]:

McCain is now on a sustained roll in his campaign. Since the time he shook up his organization a few weeks ago, he has been much more focused and has started to get through to voters. Democrats — and the press — didn’t like the quality of those ads, but they seem to have worked politically. His stand on drilling and on Russia have also strengthened his aura of command. And now Saddleback.

That’s quite a run and it is reflected in the polls: not only have the national numbers tightened up but McCain has actually moved ahead (slightly) in three key battleground states: Ohio, Virginia and Colorado. …

In short, the tide is moving for the first time in the Republican direction. And the realization is setting in that McCain might just win.

We are still many weeks away from the election and the overall landscape clearly favors the Democrats, but these latest developments put pressure on Obama and his party to pull themselves together or face a stunning upset.

Dick Morris is rather more pointed in his criticisms. He makes it clear that Obama himself is responsible for his decline:

Last week raised important questions about whether Barack Obama is strong enough to be president. On the domestic political front, he showed incredible weakness in dealing with the Clintons, while on foreign and defense questions, he betrayed a lack of strength and resolve in standing up to Russia’s invasion of Georgia. …

Obama gave away Tuesday night, Wednesday night and part of Thursday night to the Clintons. …

If Obama can’t stand up to the Clintons, after they have been defeated, how can he measure up to a resurgent Putin who has just achieved a military victory?

Good question!

When the Georgia invasion first began, Obama appealed for “restraint” on both sides. He treated the aggressive lion and the victimized lamb even-handedly. …

After two days, Obama corrected himself, spoke of Russian aggression and condemned it. But his initial willingness to see things from the other point of view and to buy the line that Georgia provoked the invasion by occupying a part of its own country betrayed a world view characterized by undue deference to aggressors.

That’s a canny observation, and I believe that the election will be decided by those (”swing” or “independent”) voters who make personal judgments about candidates on just such a basis rather than by party or by race or gender or age or income level.

Obama’s first reaction to almost every “crisis”—whether it’s geopolitical or in his own campaign—is the same: Everybody should just calm down.

That’s admirable in everyday life, where panic creates fog and thus blinds people from making the “right” decision. In a politician living in a 24/7 hysterical media world, it’s a catastrophe.

David Brooks, disappointed though he is in the negative tone of the McCain campaign of late, nevertheless indicates that it’s the McCainiacs who get this new media climate—which demands forceful rapid responsese—and who have accommodated to it, even at the price of McCain becoming less himself:

McCain and his advisers realized the only way they could get TV attention was by talking about the subject that interested reporters most: Barack Obama. …

McCain started with grand ideas about breaking the mold of modern politics. He and Obama would tour the country together doing joint town meetings. … Obama vetoed the town meeting idea.

McCain and his advisers have been compelled to adjust to the hostile environment around them. They have been compelled, at least in their telling, to abandon the campaign they had hoped to run. Now they are running a much more conventional race, the kind McCain himself used to ridicule.

The man who lampooned the Message of the Week is now relentlessly on message (as observers of his fine performance at Saddleback Church can attest). The man who hopes to inspire a new generation of Americans now attacks Obama daily. It is the only way he can get the networks to pay attention.

The networks, of course, care only about one thing: the sensational storytelling that will capture eyeballs and the audience’s fragmented attention.

Is this any way to elect a president? I dunno, but we’re stuck with it. And as I’ve been saying for a while, JFK understood this reality in 1959, at the dawn of the television age:

The camera operators and showbiz producers who put candidates through their paces may change their strategies and think up all kinds of new tricks and they make people go through all kinds of hoops, but the camera doesn’t lie—especially when it’s trained on you for two years.

To me, it looks like Obama peaked too early. But what do I know?

update: (via Jennifer Rubin) Dean Barnett amplifies on these themes [e.a.]:

Initially, Obama-philes like Andrew Sullivan referred to Obama’s exciting foreign adventure as an “objectively miraculous fortnight.” Now, even Sullivan sees that the trip revealed the worst aspects of Obama. Although Andrew doesn’t typically bother to list Obama’s greatest shortcomings, I will – a preening narcissism, a fondness for platitudes, a tendency to whine and a potentially fatal lack of substance.

It’s the latter failing that may truly doom Obama. People who have followed the campaign closely for a while have long since discovered that Obama is the ultimate one-trick pony. Provided with a teleprompter, he delivers a speech very nicely. But even that talent has grown stale as he has run out of material.

I would also add that, as many others have noted, Sullivan’s peddling of the “no cross in the dirt” smear against McCain —and then following it up with an insistence that journalists track down the truth about McCain’s story —is the surest sign that Obama’s campaign has gone south.

Are these questions that you want to know the answers to?:

why did you not mention this transcendent story in 1973? Why, in discussing three Christmases in captivity in Vietnam, was this story - far more powerful than any of the other anecdotes - omitted? How was it possible for the gun guard of May 1969 to be present at Christmas that year when McCain had been transferred to another camp? Is it possible that McCain’s memory has faded with time and that he has simply fused his own memories with other stories - as Clinton did with Bosnia sniper fire and as Kerry did in remembering another Christmas he could not have actually witnessed where he said he did?

I have no interest in getting answers to those questions.