After my recent entry on Bush nominee Julie Myers and her lack of qualifications to head the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, I was a little disturbed to see the qualifications -- or lack thereof -- of Richard Jones, the new Ambassador to Israel. Jones has even admitted that he is "a novice in dealing with Israel". Questionable appointment? I think so.

Washington Times

... the new U.S. ambassador to Israel, Richard Jones, most recently Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's right-hand man on Iraq, has "roots in the Arab world so deep," reports the Washington Post, "that his beloved greyhound is named Kisa — for Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, his first posting in the Arab world." Explains Mr. Jones: "Maybe they wanted someone who could provide the Arab perspective, too." Which is weird, at best. Of all countries, Israel certainly knows the Arab point of view, historically delivered at gunpoint. But why, oh why, is the American ambassador concerned with presenting the Arab point of view? Is the Arab point of view the American point of view? And where does that leave us in the so-called war on terror?

Tipped by: Powerline via Michelle Malkin

Other Commentary:

The Bow Ramp who doesn't find him such a bad appointment after reading that Jones has a price on his head from Hezbollah. Does being hated by terrorists make you qualified though? There has to be someone out there who would be more suitably qualified.