Alan uses a straw man argument and name calling in the first instance. I mean what the heck does Noam Chomsky have to do with Melanie Phillips?
Second Alan admits that “Phillips is right to criticize some of the things President Obama said in his Cairo speech” but then shoves it under the table by dismissing her other criticism as “a paranoid and hateful reading of his words.” Why doesn’t Alan take Obama to task for Obama’s eggegious spouting of the false Muslim ‘narrative’ that is used to deligitimize Israel’s existence? He, better than most, knows that this narrative is taught on campuses throughout the world including the ‘liberal’ US ones. In fact that is the Chomsky narrative that Obama spouted.
Alan says that he was also critical of “Rahm Emanuel for linking American efforts to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons with Israel’s actions with regard to the settlements.”
By repeating the conditional provisos on his Obama support, Alan appears to be engaged in careful a** covering that suggests he knows which way the winds are blowing.
He's addressing his readership. Melanie=Noam, makes the arguement much easier.
At some point Alan will choose between political loyalty, or what's right.