Israeli newspapers: Obama approved Western Wall note for publication

"Given that McCain, victim of torture, has compromised himself to the extent of kind of sort of signing off on torture, I don't think he's got any lessons to teach Obama on moral consistency."

Actually I'm about as mature as I'll probably be able to get. What I found was that when your head first hits the sidewalk you get a new perspective: "hooray for me and f*** you" doesn't make as much sense with mortality staring you in the face as back when you thought the world would go on forever, the strongest will struggle to the top, etc. etc. Given that McCain, victim of torture, has compromised himself to the extent of kind of sort of signing off on torture, I don't think he's got any lessons to teach Obama on moral consistency.

Wooing is fundamental to politics.....I find no fault in the wooing.....he is disingenuous because he is not just wooing ......he is clearly now presenting himself as something he is not.....That is disingeuous.

I read both of his books....did you? If the answer to that question is yes then you have no choice but to agree. He is not a centrist.

I lost respect for the man when he chose to pretend that he is a moderate. I loved his passionate belief in his "ideals".....Unlike JFK and Bobby who sold the country on their ideals, Obama sold out his ideals to get elected......they did not compromise their intellectual integrity as Obama has

As you mature you will, no doubt moderate your passion for the proletariat position....I know that I did.

Chazzkc has been right, or almost right, twice. I'm grinding my teeth as I say that.

Of course, calling a presidential candidate "disingenuous" for wooing the center, unless they are actually solid centrists, is like calling them oxygen-breathing, carbon-dioxide exhaling mammals. What YOU should note is that things have changed around here. Given the total botch neo-cons made of having six years of uncontrolled power in this country, what used to work fine to stampede the proles isn't doing all that well anymore. Specifically, using "liberal" as an all-purpose rube-jerker doesn't work. Obama's liberal? 'Zat mean he doesn't spend, spend, spend without raising taxes? Uh...OK. He doesn't declare war on anybody who looks at him funny, without plan nor purpose nor funding nor troops? Uh...OK. He doesn't declare the rule of law a quaint artifact from times past, and claim an imperial executive right to do as he pleases without legislative review? Hey, I'll get me some o' THAT.
Seriously-tagging someone "liberal" may hurt a candidate in the eyes of the 6% of the population that listens to Rush Pilonidal, but I think I can live with that risk.

He is disingenuous. His voting record in the US senate is acknowledged as the most liberal of all 100 members.

To get elected he must convince the disengaged independent voters that he is a centrist......and you know it. If he succeeds he wins...if he does not, he loses.

Not really relevant ....but I am not fond of McCain either.....and to deny Obama's extreme left position is to be as disingenuous as your chosen candidate .....whther you accept the socialist postulation or not.

The America we'd known for 224 years died when Clueless George took over. With any luck Obama can restore the rule of law and stop acting like the Martin Sheen president in Dead Zone.
"Socialist" - we should be so lucky. Maybe a socialist economy would bring the dollar back up from ground level against the euro.

The America we'd known for 224 years died when Clueless George took over. With any luck Obama can restore the rule of law and stop acting like the Martin Sheen president in Dead Zone.
"Socialist" - we should be so lucky. Maybe a socialist economy would bring the dollar back up from ground level against the euro.

Obama ain't a socialist -- it's a stupid claim that the McCain camp is drumming up, in its mudslinging effort.

Yep, Virginia, if you can't beat him by discussing the issues, let's sling mud right and left, 'cause God knows the American public prefers to vote based on caricatures rather than actual positions, right?

Looks like McCain learned a hard lesson in 2000 when the "Straight-Talk Express" was derailed by Karl Rove's tactics, eh? And Chazzy's brought into those tactics, hook, line and sinker, hasn't he?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/opinion/30wed1.html

The dialogue is hysterical......Got home and laughed for ten minutes reading the passionate discourse about a detail that is so, so not relevant.

Whether or not Obamas published wailing wall note was proferred to the press by a kid or by a staffer is singularly unimportant.

We already know that Obama is, at the very least, among the most disingenuous national politicians since tricky dick. What word better describes the acknowledged "most liberal rep in the Senate" posturing himself as a moderate centrist? NONE.

The truth that astute observers all agree on is that his electability is directly tied to his selling that moderate centrist tripe to the 50% of the voters who are actually independent voters. If he cannot, he loses. If he can, he wins. It's that simple. His opponent is almost as irrelevant as the arguments in the posting.

I personally believe that we are in deep doo doo if he succeeds. He is a classic socialist..... so far left that he is almost a Marxist. In combination with dumb and dumber (Reed and Pelosi) we would be screwed .....the country we have known for 232 years would be no more.

This is pretty bloody amazing. Barnacle Bill gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar, ignores the apparent debunking of the Ma'ariv quote, puts up a link to the Jerusalem Post that says nothing whatsoever about his claim that they "have" a copy of the note, and immediately starts blowing smoke about side issues-no, munequita, Barack Obama's days as a community organizer have absolutely nothing to do with your posting one lie and one half-truth about a note left at the Wailing Wall.

Once again, the problem isn't that you're a conservative voice. It's that you're an idiot who's a perpetual embarrassment to actual conservatives. When you're done mangling an issue in print we do NOT know the conservative side of that issue, what we have are the ramblings of a fruit loop who thinks the Barbary pirates are a good proxy for modern Islamic fundamentalism. Damn that habeas corpus, jettison that liberal nonsense and you'll see us get so free and democratic it'll put yer eye out!

Marrone, what a putz.

Clay actually had a signature issue that he was passionate about. Obama, not so much.

Carry on.

"why shouldn’t there be some conservative voices around this blog and news paper?"

Well, gosh, there's no problem with having a conservative voice or viewpoint -- my problem is with your continued and ongoing misrepresentations of reality. I question whether the Star should grant you the authority to use this soapbox to spread lies, factual misrepresentations, and innuendoes. Even though you're (clearly) not a professional journalist, it seems to me that there should be some basic standards of factual accuracy and competence to which you should be held.

Labeling oneself a conservative shouldn't exempt you from basic fact-checking.

I have no idea what or who dolla is quoting trying to debunk me but I believe my links are legit, one being a news magazine from Israel. You also completely discount the other newspaper that also claims to have had a copy. If you need a bit more how about the Jerusalem Post, http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215331112489&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull.

I do find it really amusing, Interface, that you regularly find it necessary to, “question what his (my) qualifications are for contributing on this page, other than he holds himself out as a so-called ‘conservative’." Qualifications? To express my opinion in the local paper and blog? Really?

Yet you spend so little time questioning the qualifications of Obama for being POTUS. This guy whose resume included 143 days in the Senate and years as a “community organizer” where he associated with the likes of bomber Bill Ayers and hateful Jeremiah Wright. What the heck IS a community organizer anyway? Folks, think Clay Chastain!

By the way, why shouldn’t there be some conservative voices around this blog and news paper? Especially since the editorial board does lean to the left with the occasional exception of E. Thomas McClanahan who we haven’t heard from since late June when he wrote a few posts in favor of more drilling. I think those columns got him a new corner office……somewhere in the sub basement. I’m hoping they get wires run for his phone and computer soon so he’ll write some more. I should say that all of the editorial writers and board that I have either met or communicated with have been really nice people. I have been treated very well by all concerned. So don’t read any unintended slam into this. But there’s no doubt that the editorial room leans left. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with presenting both sides of an issue.

Ross Balano Midwest Voices 2008

that it lets folks like Balano publish dreck like this under its banner?

Of course, Balano would rather believe that the entire international media got the green light to publish this, yet only Ma’ariv thought it was newsworthy enough to do so. If they knew what was in the note, why’d they need some dopey kid — who’s now begging forgiveness — to dig it out of the wall for them?

Looks like this bogus story was spread in part by a blog on The New Republic and was regurgitated by Balano:

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/07/28/is-anything-sacred.aspx

and, as dollakimbo just noted, looks like that very same TNR blogger has finally followed up with Ma'arev and the story proved to be so much hot air -- but hot air and misinformation spread by Balano and his ilk:

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/07/29/obama-vindicated.aspx

Again, why does the Star allow this guy to post lies and innuendo under its banner? It's embarassing and insulting.

Obama Vindicated?

Yesterday, I posted an item about an accusation from Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv that the Obama campaign had leaked a copy of his Western Wall note to the foreign press (rather than Ma'ariv having bought it from some yeshiva kid who stole it out of the wall). After some additional reporting last night, I noted that the story sounded a bit fishy--not only has Ma'ariv not offered any tangible evidence to support this claim, but they also have only made the claim via a spokesman to various Israeli papers rather than printing the accusation in their own paper.

I just got off the phone with a Ma'ariv spokesman who says that the accusation is "completely false," and that he has no idea who these papers were quoting from Ma'ariv. "No official spokesman for Ma'ariv told this to any of the papers." I've got some calls in to these papers to find out where they got the quote. (I'll update here when I hear back.) He told me definitively that "the Obama campaign did not give us a copy of the letter or approve it for printing."

Now what does it say about you that you're so eager to embrace this smear?

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/27/student-apologizes-for-stealing-obama-prayer-from-western-wall/

The very link you posted undercuts your own thesis.

"The U.S. presidential candidate visited the site early Thursday and placed a note in the cracks of the wall, as is customary. The note was subsequently removed from the wall, according to the daily Maariv, which printed what it said were the contents of the prayer. Maariv said a religious student gave the note to the newspaper."

and

"Jerusalem lawyer Shahar Alon asked Attorney General Menachem Mazuz yesterday to order a police investigation into the removal and publication of Obama's note.

"By making the note public," Alon wrote to Mazuz, "Maariv violated the law protecting holy sites, several clauses in the penal code and also infringed upon the basic rights of a person's honor and freedom."

all from your second link:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1006139.html

of coure, the newspaper that published the note is arguing that the law doesn't apply to notes written by non-Jews. I'm going with the lawyer's take on it until we hear more.

As for your second link, I call your attention to the picture of the actual note that was stolen from the Wall and printed in the paper. That's not a release from the Obama campaign -- that's the actual prayer he placed in the wall.

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13021.htm

I don't think you're illiterate -- just blinded by your right-wing biases.

You probably also think that 200,000 people turned out in Berlin to hear an obscure reggae band that Obama just happened to speak after. [chuckle] Right.

The paper wasn’t in any danger of prosecution even though there is a law in Israel against such things because the law doesn’t apply to prayers submitted by people who are not Jewish. Please feel free to check for yourself.

Obama’s people planned this out from the beginning. Otherwise, why would they provide the newspapers the text and approval to print it before they actually even make the trip to the wall? It’s obvious they wanted it printed.

They guy is a phony and a joke. So much for “hope” and “change.” All he can do now is “hope” he keeps enough people fooled until November so they don’t “change” their minds and vote for McCain.

Here’s a couple of links for you:

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13021.htm

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1006139.html

Ross Balano Midwest Voices 2008

.

to the press release you quote.

It is worth noting that the Israeli daily didn't just publish the content of the prayer attributed to Obama, but in fact published a photograph of the actual note, stolen by a seminary student.

Here's the story on the seminary student:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215331119403&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

And you'll see that the paper that printed the note was itself under threat of criminal prosecution for doing so:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215331112489&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Only thing that seems fishy to me is Balano jumping up to attack before we know whether there's any substance -- but this is hardly the first time I'm led to question what his qualifications are for contributing on this page, other than he holds himself out as a so-called "conservative."