Doug on June 12, 2007 at 3:10 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?

I’m not ready to assume maliciousness when poor judgement is as likely a reason.

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.

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.

Drudge should know better.

Allahpundit on June 12, 2007 at 11:49 AM

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

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

Allah, when are we gonna see some presidential election comics? I miss the old Allah and his seriously funny humor.

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.

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.”

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

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.

I for one certainly am outraged, outraged that we haven’t bombed Iran yet…..

doriangrey on June 12, 2007 at 11:41 AM

Ditto

AP is dead right, if Kos ran something like this we’d crucify him. And rightly so.

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.

*SpaceBalls references are always welcomed!

Why bring Israel into it especially when the story involves a Jewish-American politician?

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?

But yeah, showing him all buddy-buddy with Olmert looks bad, because he didn’t kick Hisb’Shaitan @$$ hard during the ‘war’.

I understand the insinuation that Lieberman is a puppet/shill/stooge for Israel, but it doesn’t enrage me either. Maybe it should.

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.

so you’re saying the picture wasn’t appropriate because Israel was no part of the story?

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.

so you’re saying the picture wasn’t appropriate because Israel was no part of the story?

Would it better or worse if it’d been Bibi?

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?