Middle East Progress rips Drudge over Lieberman photo
posted at 11:35 am on June 12, 2007 by Allahpundit
They’re a lefty outfit, a subsidiary of the Podesta-run Center for American Progress. But fair is fair: if a liberal site had illustrated a story about Lieberman saying we need to hit Iran to stop them from killing U.S. troops with a photo of him acting chummy with Ehud Olmert, we’d all be outraged.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I for one certainly am outraged, outraged that we haven’t bombed Iran yet…..
doriangrey on June 12, 2007 at 11:41 AM
Really?
Jaibones on June 12, 2007 at 11:47 AM
If Kos had run a photo of Lieberman and Olmert being buddy buddy to illustrate a story about Liebs taking a hard line on Iran, we’d be knee-deep in righty venom. LGF, rightly, would have made it the latest chapter of the “Protocols of the Daily Kos.” It’s an ugly insinuation. Drudge should know better.
Allahpundit on June 12, 2007 at 11:49 AM
I also thought it was uncharacteristically nutrootish of Drudge to post that pic.
Good job for the lefty org for pointing it out.
AlexB on June 12, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Really? Because it implies that we don’t want them to nuke Israel back to the iron age, either? I’m not being intentionally dense, I just don’t get the insinuation. Would it better or worse if it’d been Bibi?
Tanya on June 12, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Fair and balanced…dissing?
Speakup on June 12, 2007 at 12:08 PM
It would have been the same. Lieberman’s point wasn’t about the nuke program, actually, it was specifically about U.S. troops, so if Drudge was making a point about nukes he had it pegged to the wrong story. But even if it was about nukes, why bring Israel into it especially when the story involves a Jewish-American politician?
Allahpundit on June 12, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Allahpundit on June 12, 2007 at 12:14 PM
so you’re saying the picture wasn’t appropriate because Israel was no part of the story?
samuelrylander on June 12, 2007 at 12:18 PM
Are we generally supposed to defend Drudge so it becomes our obligation to criticize him when he’s an a$$? I never really thought of him as much of an ally.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on June 12, 2007 at 12:22 PM
I understand the insinuation that Lieberman is a puppet/shill/stooge for Israel, but it doesn’t enrage me either. Maybe it should.
Matticus Finch on June 12, 2007 at 12:24 PM
Yeah. I vaguely recall some grumbling awhile back when a paper chose to illustrate a story about Cheney with him speaking at an AIPAC event. The Star of David was visible in the background. Here it’s not even in the background: you’ve got the state seal in the photo and the prime minister looking glowy and chummy with him. Why? What does Olmert have to do with this? Just seems completely gratuitous.
Allahpundit on June 12, 2007 at 12:25 PM
The insinuation is so obvious it’s actually kinda hard to see. Nice catch.
Mike H on June 12, 2007 at 12:30 PM
I’m of this school of thought. In fact, I would take it a step further and say I wish we would just come out and say “In the middle east, we are on the side of our allies, most notably Israel, the standard bearer of democracy and peace in that region. France, Germany even GB are more historically alinged with countries such as Syria, Iran, The Country Formerly know as Iraq, etc.. These countries represent repression, terror and instability. It’s time for countries to stop with the UN, multi-culti crap and choose a side.”
You want an honest broker? That’s an honest broker.
JackStraw on June 12, 2007 at 12:33 PM
And here I thought it was about the angle that makes the Menorah of the state seal look like antlers coming out of Joementum’s head.
But yeah, showing him all buddy-buddy with Olmert looks bad, because he didn’t kick Hisb’Shaitan @$$ hard during the ‘war’.
The Monster on June 12, 2007 at 12:44 PM
Ohhh. You know, I know he’s Jewish, but Joe’s just never struck me as rabidly pro-Israel. He’s always been chummy with the palistinians, and backed out of his own plan to finally have our embassy moved to Jerusalem. But I see your point. Why cloud the issue?
Tanya on June 12, 2007 at 12:48 PM
I wonder if it was just sloppiness on Drudge’s part? Unless he has a track record of “anti-Zionism” like Kos or the other liberal swamps that I don’t know of, I’m gonna guess he just grabbed a pic without thinking.
Bad Candy on June 12, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Outrage was so last year!!!!!! I think most us have move way past outrage all the way to Ludicrousrage!*
*SpaceBalls references are always welcomed!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on June 12, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Drudge has connections and a sense for the provocative, but not one of style or flair.
Lieberman is all-American and his argument Sunday was all about Americans and American interest. It’s beyond expectation that Drudge might consider choosing an intro pic with a blue mood, expressionist, pop art, or post modernist theme. Maybe pics that are on-point should be added now, too. But I’ll chalk the photo choice up to Drudge’s pic resource folder being very small. If not, his thinking certainly is.
Dusty on June 12, 2007 at 1:02 PM
The clear implication by that photo is that Liebermann’s support for a military strike is because he’s carrying water for Israel. Israel was not a part of his comments on Face the Nation, so when Drudge runs a photo of him with the PM of Israel, the implication is that he’s doing Israel’s bidding.
AP is dead right, if Kos ran something like this we’d crucify him. And rightly so.
Enrique on June 12, 2007 at 1:05 PM
I’m with Attila. I don’t feel any particular urge to defend Drudge anymore (if I ever did). That guy is out for himself and himself alone and while I think his politics is vaguely libertarian, other than that, he’s just a sensationlist and muckraker. He never links blogs, even though his site is sort of the uber or ur-blog and has he has a real arrogance about him.
Fred on June 12, 2007 at 1:10 PM
Ditto
ballz2wallz on June 12, 2007 at 1:22 PM
True, but that’s because Kos has a well defined past of Anti-Semitism, I haven’t really heard Drudge having that kind of track record. I’m not ready to assume maliciousness when poor judgement is as likely a reason.
Bad Candy on June 12, 2007 at 1:32 PM
I agree. I’m tired of this nonsense that the U.S. needs to be a neutral third party. The morally correct thing to do is to take the side of the party that reaches out for peace, not the side that continually threatens the other and breaks all agreements, indoctrinates the next generation, one side disguises terrorists and terror vehicles.
The President should say, “America stands firmly behind Israel. Any enemy of Israel is an enemy of the United States. Israel — and Israel’s Jewish identity — will not be destroyed physically or demographically as long as America has something to say about it.”
aunursa on June 12, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Of course we would be outraged if Kos did it. He and his followers are vicious anti-Semites and most of them proudly so. Let’s not fall into the moral relativism trap. Leave that for the libs.
Capitalist Infidel on June 12, 2007 at 2:35 PM
I must be missing a few of the points here. I would have my pix taken with Lieberman due to his stand on our war against terroristic Islam. I would not have my pix taken with Olmert because he’s a weenie leftist who has done more damage to Israel than good. And I wouldn’t care one bit who did or didn’t use a photograph.
Doug on June 12, 2007 at 3:10 PM
Allah, when are we gonna see some presidential election comics? I miss the old Allah and his seriously funny humor.
Andy in Agoura Hills on June 12, 2007 at 3:52 PM
HA!
Sorry, the guy is two steps above TMZ anymore (which he links two alot). The only one in between them is The Smoking Gun, which again, he links two alot.
- The Cat
MirCat on June 12, 2007 at 4:32 PM
For a guy whose career is built on a semen stain, this is about right.
He’s somewhat correct, some of the time.
But is in it for the ratings/bucks/ego.
I wish Pakistan would nuke Iran.
Just to mix things up.
profitsbeard on June 12, 2007 at 4:47 PM
I think we ARE assuming poor judgment. That’s the point of this post, right? In this case, Drudge’s poor judgment is exemplified by a problematic association of headline and photo.
Enrique on June 12, 2007 at 4:56 PM
It’s not the same thing, because Olmert isn’t just John Q Public. As AP pointed out, there is an insinuation behind the photograph, and it is created by the fact that Israel has nothing to do with the story. The insinuation is that Lieberman is contemplating a strike against Iran because he is Jewish and highly sympathetic to Israel, NOT because of his professed concern for our troops. The other piece of background to this is that it smacks of the “dual loyalties” canard that is part of the anti-semites stock in trade, which surfaced when Liebs was running for VP. Let’s say Guliani says we ought to go after Iran and they put him in a picture smiling with the pope. Implication–it’s a Catholic thing, especially if Iran had been very vocal in threatening Italy in the past. Get it?
smellthecoffee on June 12, 2007 at 5:36 PM