There are two fundamental flaws with this post. First, it is a rhetorial con job to apply a term describing a policy explicitly designed on racial grounds to measures designed explicitly and only to prevent terrorists and suicide bombers from entering Israel to kill and maim. One wonders how it is possible to maintain so studied a blindness to this obvious facet of reality. Second, it is intellectually dishonest to review Carter's book without at least acknowledging that there is substantial evidence that Carter plagarized key passages, seriously misrepresented positions of participants in meetings he described and otherwise attempted to alter the historical record. This post is an ideological screed masquerading as a book review.

This is nothing more than Suzanne Nossel's opinion and presents an unprovable assertion about an unmeasurable international condition.

This is a puff piece for Obama because it fails to address the obvious question --- Obama has been in the Senate for two years and hundreds of votes on every major issue confronting the country. He also had thousands of votes on many related or derivative issues in the Illinois state senate. But the reporter covers none of this important ground and thus ends up with a herd story that is easy to write but which is about a quarter-inch deep.

The key graph in this opinion piece is the one listing Bush's many alleged sins, especially as they relate to how his administration has "strayed from the rule of law." But Bush has yet to suspend the right of Habeus Corpus, throw newspaper editors and other private citizens in jail without charge or impose rigorous censorship on the nation's press, even to the extent of personally rewriting news stories. Lincoln did all of these things during war, yet is only mentioned in the context of his criticism of Polk. This piece is simply Eric Foner's ideological vent against a president he clearly despises.

Reynolds presents cogent reasoning and vivid examples to make a strong case.