Consider this a companion peace to the earlier “Rights.”
I’ve noticed a recurring theme in many political discussions in which I’ve engaged, and what it boils down to is this: “How dare you criticize Bush when your hero, Bill Clinton, has done the same or worse.”
Putting aside that I’ve never said Clinton was my hero…indeed, putting aside that I’ve openly stated he embarrassed the office of the presidency…
…that makes it okay…how?
See, that’s what I don’t comprehend. Bush supporters spouting high dudgeon that he’s criticized for his actions when, of course, conservative pundits never said ANYTHING harsh about Clinton in the entire eight years of his presidency. Not a word, not a syllable.
Is anyone suffocating on the double standard? Because I certainly am.
Right on this board, it was stated, in referencing the Dixie Chicks, that Trent Lott was on solid ground suggesting Clinton’s bombing of Kosovo was a dodge to distract from impeachment proceedings, and how Lott was then being made to apologize. So why, too, shouldn’t the Dixie Chicks be made to apologize? Let us not even discuss that a passing remark by a singer is simply not comparable to an inflammatory prejudicial remark made by a senior member of a governing board about to pass judgment on the chief executive (tantamount to a judge saying, “The defendant’s hired a high price lawyer, probably to try and make him seem less guilty when he comes before me.”)
Instead let us ponder the double standard. Lott’s remark is understandable, acceptable. But opine that perhaps, maybe, Bush was motivated to go after Saddam because his vow to bring in Osama bin Laden “dead or alive” (remember that?) has proven fruitless and he’s worried it’ll hurt his re-election chances, and suddenly you’re showing unpatriotic disrespect for the office of the presidency.
The message is clear. Clinton was fair game. Bush isn’t, or at least shouldn’t be, because we’re at war. Which, it might be observed, is exactly the status that he craved. Keep the people off balance, keep them running scared, so they’ll be too afraid to make a change in 2004 (or, as one poster said in positively Bushian style, 2006.)
JFK, endeavoring to speak German, informed the people of Berlin, “I am a jelly doughnut.” That doesn’t make it okay that our current president can’t string two sentences together without it being an adventure. FDR signed a document consigning Japanese American citizens to prison camps. That doesn’t make beyond reproach the enacting of acts violating fundamental aspects of privacy and due process. I mean, how far back do you want to take it? Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. That’s MUCH worse than authorizing burglaries and covering them up, so Richard Nixon should never have resigned from office.
Someone asked me if I thought we’d have invaded Iraq if Gore were president. I’m thinking no. Why? Because even if he’d wanted to, Congress would never have given him the authority to do so. Besides, they’d be too busy with month eighteen of probes into the security lapses that allowed the destruction of the WTC and trying to blame it on him. My belief is that, rather than 9/11 defining his presidency, it would have been the trigger for attack dogs to have been let loose with one simple message: Terrorists think Gore is weak and therefore attacked us. This never would have happened with a Republican in the White House.
But blame Bush? Naaaah.
Double standard. Conjecture, granted…but not wholly without foundation, I think.
No one should be above consideration and criticism. And this attitude of trying to punish the critics or excuse the subject of criticism because others have allegedly done the same or worse, rather than giving thought to what’s being said…
…now THAT’S unAmerican.
• 
** The anti-Dixie Chicks hysteria continues…
DJs Suspended for Playing Dixie Chicks **
Matt;
Take it from someone who’s been in radio for over twelve years. Those DJ’s were lucky they didn’t get canned. You don’t change the programming with out the Program Director or Station Manager’s okay. Not only will it get you canned, it can get you not hired anywhere else. I know the DJ’s thought they were right, but it’s the wrong thing to do. My suspicion though is that this was a publicity stunt since the PD in the story said they were going to start adding the Chicks back into rotation anyway.
And for the record, a NPR DJ was dismissed from a station for not playing NPR news. He thought it was too biased against the war. He was canned, and rightfully so. as far as I know though he did get another job, but I wouldn’t have hired him, and I was for the war.
Facts about Bush that Clinton couldn’t have gotten away with:
Bush had relatives and supporters prohibit more than 100,000 black people from voting in Florida. They were prohibited based on if they had the same name, birthdate, or even a similar social security number to a known felon. Said “felon” (in quotes because many WEREN’T) could have done so little as not pay for a parking fine, and he’d be banned from voting (that’s unconstitutional, btw). Of the blacks permitted to vote, 90% voted Gore.
There was a lot more Bush did that was highly illegal – you can read about it at Stupid White Men, by Michael Moore. Very informational, interesting, anecdotal book. Check it out.
I think that even worse than the “if you accuse my guy of being bad I’ll accuse your guy of being worse” argument is one that peter himself relies far too much on; the “let’s jump into Dr Doom’s Alternate Reality Machine and argue about what might have happened in the Land Of Make-Believe”.
I mean, when you say that if 9/11 had happened on Gore’s watch those mean old republicans would have blamed him and prevented him from having the kind of success that Bush (pah! feh!) has had, what kind of rational response can one give? It’s like two kids arguing over who would win in a fight, Batman or Superman?
Considering how standards double over upon themselves depending on who’s in office, it not only becomes easy to make such assumptions, it’s expects.
I mean, let’s face it. If during Clinton’s administration, Chelsea was caught trying to buy a drink while underage and Clinton’s niece was busted for drug possession (cocaine), there would have been a great hue and cry and wringing of hands on Bill and Hillary’s poor parenting and how this was endemic of the administration ushering in a decline of “family values”. The play would have been in the media spin cycle for months.
The fact that no such outrage issued forth from the (almost certainly right-wing) pundits when Bush’s daughters and niece were caught doing those exact same things leads me to believe that Gore would have probably been hammered for “allowing” 9/11 to happen.
Which is actually pretty tough because Supes gave Batman a kryptonite ring just in case he got mind controlled by Magneto or something so there’s that, but, you know, Superman could just hover in the stratosphere and scorch the whole Eastern seaboard from a safe distance. So it’s kind of a toss up.
With the exception of Magneto doing the mind controlling, I have to agree with you. Too close to call.
But if Bats could get his hands on some magic . . .
Whatever anyone’s opinions on this, let me point out that if Saddam is a dictator, and there has been evidence that he tortured people in prisons in Iraq, well I for one am glad that his regime is now crushed to pieces.
I’m thrilled too. Let freedom reign.
And the bonus? The price of oil, transportation and gasoline’s been going down too! And then, with any luck, the price of books, movies, electronics, groceries, and even comics could go down too!
I don’t know if one necessarily led to the other, but okay.
I suppose the way to put it is that while even I’m not a Bush supporter, I most certainly DO support the war on Iraq.
I might have too if the administration had been straight up about it. But they weren’t.
If they’d said we’re invading Iraq to free it’s people, that’s one thing. But the fact they tried to tie up Iraq with 9/11, stated that Saddam Hussien was supporting Al Queda, tried to freak people into thinking that Iraq was this close to developing a nuke and had to be taken out now despite the fact they knew all of that was hogwash . . . that’s what sticks in my craw. Ari Fleisher said getting all those WMD that Iraq supposedly had was the whole point of the war. (BTW, calling chemical/biological weapons Weapons of Mass Destruction is an utter misnomer. I wish people would stop confusing it with the real thing.) To suddenly say that , no, it was always about Iraqi freedom (convenient since no WMD have been found) is not just disingenuous, it’s dishonest.
Pulling a bait-and-switch is illegal most of the time. In politics, it’s S.O.P.
As much as I enjoy your writing, your commentary on Bush seems to come off as trite and/or critical of Bush simply because he is Bush. Probably moreso of the latter. And as much as I hate to lob the “trite bomb” your way, I just never feel that you have given the guy the benefit of the doubt for one second, at least in the commentary I’ve read.
As for the comparisons to Clinton, that’s a creature of his own making as well as those who supported him through scandals and political errors. I know I never saw a reason for us to be in Bosnia, other than the fact that the UN thought it was a good idea. I supported his bombing of the Sudan until he went back on vacation and never mentioned the action again and then we find out we had bombed an aspirin factory.
Also consider that for a veeerrryy long time, those of us with passionate feelings that are surfacing now as to our country’s place in the world have been frowned upon by those who see the US as nothing more than an oppresive, imperialist power. We don’t want to silence anyone’s speech, but by the same token, we’re not going to sit back and be silent about something we feel so passionate about, meaning our support for the country and our President.
**Does any of this sound familiar to anybody? How quickly people forget. You can color distinctions about behavior and presidents however you like…the end fact is that the Republicans are using the same arguments against Democrats that the former used against the latter lo those many years ago.
Can somebody just tell me exactly why this should be controversial and/or suprising??**
It’s not surprising. It’s stupidity.
At a time when this country was increasingly liberal, liberals made no attempt to disguise contempt for conservatives. In the long run, it was a foolish attitude to take, and it’s obvious just *how* foolish an attitude it was to take.
So now conservatism is on the upswing and liberals are fighting to remain relevant. Now: Do conservatives learn from liberal mistakes and realize that a moderate course is preferable?
Heck no. Conservatives are instead being boneheaded enough to show that they can be as arrogant, as swaggering, as smug and self-satisfied and, frankly, stupid, as any liberal. Conservatives believe that they’re on top and the ride will never stop.
Except this country’s society is one big pendulum. It swings in one direction, then goes in the other.
And sooner or later, this country will swing toward liberal attitudes again. It’s inevitable.
Hopefully liberals will have learned a valuable lesson…because conservatives don’t seem to be doing so.
PAD
**\\And you noticed who was shut down almost immediately after 9/11?
Maher.\\
This would be the same Bill Maher with an HBO talk show, a best-selling book under his belt, and a one-man show on Broadway? That’s an…expansive…definition of “shut down” you’re using.**
A lot of people miss the point of the truly insidious and frightening thing that happened with Maher.
It wasn’t just that he said something controversial and got booted off the air. It was that the White House press secretary, when asked about Maher, did not say something like “Well, everyone’s entitled to an opinion” or “I disagree, but he has a right to say it.” No. As I recall, he said, “Americans have to watch what they say.”
The implied threat is clear. Dare to offer criticism, and the consequences will be severe. You’re either with us or against us. America, love it or leave it. You don’t like what we’re doing? Shut the hëll up.
What’s sad, of course, is that there are people reading the above who are nodding and saying, “Well, yeah.”
PAD
From David T.
BTW, calling chemical/biological weapons Weapons of Mass Destruction is an utter misnomer. I wish people would stop confusing it with the real thing.
It’s not a misnomer. To the military a nuke is a germ bomb is a toxic chemical bomb. All are designed to spread mass death and/or destruction over a large area. If Iraq had used chemical or biological weapons during the conflict, I have no doubt there would be some sections of smoking black glass in the desert now.
Also we are beginning to find evidence that where were chemical trailers that have been scrubbed clean before the war started, and some thoughts that chemical agents were dumped in the rivers.
Finally, to steal from a television commentator, why are the same people that wanted to give UN inspectors more and more time now demanding that the US produce instant results from the search for WMD’s?
Wow thanks Mr. David only evil republicand have double standards while Democrats are at a much higher level plane of being.
Thank you and your sycophants for enlightening me.
(quote):
Finally, to steal from a television commentator, why are the same people that wanted to give UN inspectors more and more time now demanding that the US produce instant results from the search for WMD’s?
(unquote)
Um, perhaps because, as a rationale for a pre-emptive attack, it was stated, repeatedly, that it was known what was held, and where, but the details were ‘too sensitive’ to share with the UNMOVIC teams.
One definition of so-called WMD, as per the U.N. committee responsible for such distinctions, by the by, does not include most biological weapons, but does include the use of depleted uranium.
On another note, I guess it is just too bad for the people of, oh, say, Burma (a/k/a Myanmar) that they aren’t living atop an ocean of oil.
Little article (argument is a bit smug and pat, but not badly put forth) on the ‘ends justify the means’ situation, here:
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7682
Y’know, if we had offered to buy out the contracts owed the French and the Russians by the Iraqis (about $10 billion total) and offered Saddam and his minions and retinue a few billion to vacate the premises, thousands of deaths and injuries might have been avoided, saved more than $50 billion (thus far) in adjunct appropriations and costs, and not had to ham-handedly had to deal with yet another populace (Afghanistan was the prior case) set adrift (as opposed to ‘given’ freedom).
Y’know, if we had offered to buy out the contracts owed the French and the Russians by the Iraqis (about $10 billion total) and offered Saddam and his minions and retinue a few billion to vacate the premises, thousands of deaths and injuries might have been avoided, saved more than $50 billion (thus far) in adjunct appropriations and costs, and not had to ham-handedly had to deal with yet another populace (Afghanistan was the prior case) set adrift (as opposed to ‘given’ freedom).
Pardon me while I laugh. Let’s just say that Bush had done exactly as you say above. How many people, probably you included, would have simply turned right around and used it as proof that Bush and his oil buddies were simply after the oil/ Heh. In fact, I suspect you believe that anyway, which is probably why you think it would have worked.
Mr. Cognero, perhaps you missed this part of one of PAD’s recent posts, or perhaps you only conveniently forgot:
At a time when this country was increasingly liberal, liberals made no attempt to disguise contempt for conservatives. In the long run, it was a foolish attitude to take, and it’s obvious just *how* foolish an attitude it was to take.
While PAD’s views are very evidently somewhat left leaning, I have to say that they seem fairly well reasoned out, and certainly more coherent than most of the knee-jerk, inflammatory crap I’ve been hearing and reading over the past few months, from BOTH sides of the argument.
The main difference, in my experience, is that no matter the merit (or lack thereof) of any statement or argument posed by the left, the right’s response always seems to be the same. Ridicule, name calling, outright accusations of lack of patriotism, threats (veiled and otherwise).
Basically, what I’m try to get at is that is you have something intelligent to say, whatever your beliefs, by all means do so. The sharing of ideas, and even debate, can be a wonderful thing, enriching all concerned. However, if all you’re going to do is get into a huff because somebody could have the temerity to disagree with you and start namecalling, (I believe the word “sycophants” was used in a rather derisive manner) then do us all a favor and (at the risk of being a tad bit inflammatory myself) just shut up.
And sooner or later, this country will swing toward liberal attitudes again.
The scary thing is, populations usually don’t shift from conservative to liberal until the conservativism results in something extremely invasive, oppressive and/or destructive. So we may be in for an ugly ride…
the White House press secretary, when asked about Maher, did not say something like “Well, everyone’s entitled to an opinion” or “I disagree, but he has a right to say it.” No. As I recall, he said, “Americans have to watch what they say.”
The implied threat is clear. Dare to offer criticism, and the consequences will be severe.
Ironically, Maher’s comment (“We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away”) was a criticism of Clinton. It was a reference to the 1998 retaliation for the embassy bombings. It was the same thing Republicans have been saying, that Clinton wimped out on terrorism.
It’s amazing to me that PAD can reply to one of my posts with a calm, reasoned reply that I can totally agree with (IE: his post regarding the pendulum swinging betwixt conservatism and liberalism and how one should of learned from the other)…and then in the very next message go off in a totally kneejerk reactionary fashion. To wit:
when asked about Maher, did not say something like “Well, everyone’s entitled to an opinion” or “I disagree, but he has a right to say it.” No. As I recall, he said, “Americans have to watch what they say.”
The implied threat is clear. Dare to offer criticism, and the consequences will be severe. You’re either with us or against us. America, love it or leave it. You don’t like what we’re doing? Shut the hëll up.
For the record, the thing that got Maher in trouble was saying that the 9/11 terrorists were “braver” than we were. We can argue political stuff all day long but I’m sorry, when you start calling cold-blooded murderers “brave,” that is just indefensible.
The outcry over the comment came not from the Bush administration but from advertisers and viewers, both of whom were justifably outraged over the idiotic remark. As Maher is free to spout off stupidly, don’t you agree that companies are free to pull support from shows they find objectionable?
Fleisher’s comment reads to me as nothing more than him saying “when your dealing with a situation where thousands of americans were murdered, you should probably be mindful of comments you make praising killers.”
Also, I notice the Dixie Chicks Freedom Fund continues its bandwagon as well. Boy, it sure is nice of them turning all this controversy in to a chance to pose barebutt nekkid and promote themselves more. Yeah, the backlash they’re suffering is so bad. I feel so sorry for the poor Dixie Chicks.
What I’ve yet to see mentioned (and if I missed it, I apologize) is that they got in trouble with their fans before they got pulled off airwaves, burned cd’s, etc. The one made an inappropriate comment and a whole bunch of people inundated radio stations with complaints and demands not to play their music anymore. Radio stations simply jumped on the bash the Chicks bandwagon. This X-Files like conspiracy theory that 4 “shadow rulers” with some sort of power over radio, tv, print, etc, decided to punish the CHicks for bashing “their” boy Bush, is just ridiculous over-reaction by dis-empowered Democrats.
Chris
The outcry over the comment came not from the Bush administration but from advertisers and viewers, both of whom were justifably outraged over the idiotic remark. As Maher is free to spout off stupidly, don’t you agree that companies are free to pull support from shows they find objectionable?
Actually in Maher’s case the outcry came from a radio DJ who had a personal ax to grind with Maher and did not start till serveral days after Maher made his comments. Maher’s viewers, his guest, the network, the studio audience and his advertisers, did not notice, nor where bothered by his comments until others chimed in with thier interpretation of his remarks and how we should feel about them.
and a link re: the Congressional 9/11 committee report status:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/5792329.htm
The independent commission trying to get access to important data will still be the more important report, if and when it ever emerges.
For E Clark:
(quote)Pardon me while I laugh. Let’s just say that Bush had done exactly as you say above. How many people, probably you included, would have simply turned right around and used it as proof that Bush and his oil buddies were simply after the oil/ Heh. In fact, I suspect you believe that anyway, which is probably why you think it would have worked. (unquote)
The ‘Y’know…’ comment was simply idle banter, not a statement of beliefs or principles. A laugh was an apt response, in fact.
My views on that particular matter have not been stated here. Any suspicions of those views or beliefs are groundless; please note that I never said it would have worked (nor said that I thought that – just offhandedly mentioned that it had occurred to me). Solely set out a hypothesis and some ramifications if it had been successfully followed. Although specious, those off-the-cuff remarks might be viewed as more purely Libertarian than Democrat or Republican. For the record, I stand under the umbrella of none of those parties’ core philosophies.
I’m a conservative. The sad thing is that most people who read that will automatically pigeonhole me as if they know my arguments or beliefs.
The fact is, there aren’t two sides “left” and “right” there are 6 billion sides “each individual”.
It’s only when “one side” stops trying to shout down the “other side” and simply discuss things that ANYTHING will be learned/heard/changed.
Politics have become a joke (they were always leaning in that direction but now it’s a side splitter) because of this artificial division and stereotyping. Congress and the Senate are peopled by strawmen as are most of these ‘discussions’.
The implied threat is clear. Dare to offer criticism, and the consequences will be severe. You’re either with us or against us. America, love it or leave it. You don’t like what we’re doing? Shut the hëll up.
Except that Maher DIDN’T have to shut the hëll up and the consequences WEREN’T severe. The point is clear: The “threat to free speech” uttered by the White House Press Secretary was utterly and completely ineffective in shutting up the person it was aimed at, and did in fact make him a folk hero amongst the Desperately Seeking Censorship set.
>>And again the argument changes midstream.
>>The statement was not referring to “does a GOP congressman support a Democratic president?” It was, and I quote you exactly, “Republicans don’t go all partisan about foreign policy issues.”
The statement, taken in context, was about how Republicans in an alternate universe where Al Gore became President would have behaved if Gore wanted to remove Saddam Hussein from power. That’s all it was referring to. If you wanted to take that statement as some kind of universal truth I was trying to proclaim then you were the one switching arguments in midstream.
Kyoto and the ABM treaty refer to actions taken by a Republican president, and they can’t even be considered partisan unless you define partisan to mean something you don’t like.
As for Desert Fox, imagine what would have happened if Nixon had initiated a major military action on the eve of impeachment instead of resigning.
As for Desert Fox, imagine what would have happened if Nixon had initiated a major military action on the eve of impeachment instead of resigning.
Desert Fox is just one example of Republicans not supporting Clinton’s use of the military. One could just as easily point to Hati, Bosnia, or Kosovo. Let’s face the facts from day one of the Clinton Administration there were some Republicans in Congress who simply were going to oppose Clinton no matter what he did. The hypocricy comes from the fact that after eight years of attacking Clinton every chance they got, now they throw a hissy fit if the Dems want to do the same to Bush.
“Pardon me while I laugh. Let’s just say that Bush had done exactly as you say above. How many people, probably you included, would have simply turned right around and used it as proof that Bush and his oil buddies were simply after the oil/ Heh. In fact, I suspect you believe that anyway, which is probably why you think it would have worked.”
Posted by EClark1849
Of course we would say he was looking out for oil interests. It would be ok, though, because a)we are a nation dependant on oil and b)nobody would have to be killed to do it. Of course, Saddam wouldn’t have taken us up on the offer and a war would have likely been initiated by them. See, it’s ok to look out for oil interests if you let people know that’s what you’re doing. If you say to the American public, “I’m going to buy out Iraq’s debts and have the country vacated peacably so we can have more oil,” your only real opponents will be conservationists, not moralists and everybody who considers your actions suspect. We’re capitalists over here, we can handle negotiations being dealt with in a capitalist manner. In fact, we prefer it. It’s the whole “for the people of Iraq and the security of the free world” that has people scoffing.
. “From what I read, he didn’t report for National Guard duty for seventeen months. In short, he was AWOL for a year and a half. When running for the presidency, he *claimed* he reported. But nto a shred of paperwork backs that up, and not a single one of the men he supposedly served with can verify it.”
Interestingly, Andrew Sullivan has mention of this very same topic today. Apparently the New York Times, hardly a Pro-Bush newspaper to any rational reader, printed the following report back on Nov 2000:
Two Democratic senators today called on Gov. George W. Bush to release his full military record to resolve doubts raised by a newspaper about whether he reported for required drills when he was in the Air National Guard in 1972 and 1973. But a review of records by The New York Times indicated that some of those concerns may be unfounded. Documents reviewed by The Times showed that Mr. Bush served in at least 9 of the 17 months in question… On Sept. 5, 1972, Mr. Bush asked his Texas Air National Guard superiors for assignment to the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery “for the months of September, October and November.” Capt. Kenneth K. Lott, chief of the personnel branch of the 187th Tactical Recon Group, told the Texas commanders that training in September had already occurred but that more training was scheduled for Oct. 7 and 8 and Nov. 4 and 5. But Mr. Bartlett said Mr. Bush did not serve on those dates because he was involved in the Senate campaign, but he made up those dates later. Colonel Turnipseed, who retired as a general, said in an interview that regulations allowed Guard members to miss duty as long as it was made up within the same quarter. Mr. Bartlett pointed to a document in Mr. Bush’s military records that showed credit for four days of duty ending Nov. 29 and for eight days ending Dec. 14, 1972, and, after he moved back to Houston, on dates in January, April and May. The May dates correlated with orders sent to Mr. Bush at his Houston apartment on April 23, 1973, in which Sgt. Billy B. Lamar told Mr. Bush to report for active duty on May 1-3 and May 8-10. Another document showed that Mr. Bush served at various times from May 29, 1973, through July 30, 1973, a period of time questioned by The Globe.
So….maybe the reason the story never got any traction was because there was no there, there.
Just out of curiosity, what was George Bush Sr. doing during the time Dubya was in the National Guard? It was obviously before his time as Vice President and President, and I think it was before his ambassadorship to China as well. Was he CIA director at this time?
I’m just wondering how important Bush Sr. was to be able to allegedly get all those favors for his son.
So….maybe the reason the story never got any traction was because there was no there, there.
I guess it’s all in how you read (or spin) the facts. In 2000 Robie Robinson from the Boston Globe did a big story on Bush’s military record. Here are some quotes:
From May to November 1972, Bush was in Alabama working in a US Senate campaign, and was required to attend drills at an Air National Guard unit in Montgomery. But there is no evidence in his record that he did so. And William Turnipseed, the retired general who commanded the Alabama unit back then, said in an interview last week that Bush never appeared for duty there.
ROBINSON: [O]n Sept. 5, 1972, Bush requested permission to do duty for September, October, and November at the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery. Permission was granted, and Bush was directed to report to Turnipseed, the unit’s commander.
In interviews last week, Turnipseed and his administrative officer at the time, Kenneth K. Lott, said they had no memory of Bush ever reporting.
“Had he reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not,” Turnipseed said.
ROBINSON: After the [Alabama senate] election, Bush returned to Houston. But seven months later, in May 1973, his two superior officers at Ellington Air Force Base could not perform his annual evaluation covering the year from May 1, 1972 to April 30, 1973 because, they wrote, “Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of this report.”
At this point we may never know the truth about Bush’s record. You see unlike Clinton, Bush didn’t make a lot of enemies back home in Texas so there’s little reason for people in the know to spill the beans.
I’m just wondering how important Bush Sr. was to be able to allegedly get all those favors for his son.
Besides being a really rich guy in Texas, George Bush the elder was first a congressman and then head of the CIA. Interstingly enough he enjoyed the CIA job so much that he asked Carter if he could stay on after the Ford administration.
Ok I’ll shut up.
BTW isn’t one of the reasons this whole mess started because people were outraged that the Dixie Chicks were told to shut up.
Rest assured I know your not violating my freedom of speech by being rude.
Your just voicing your opinion as I did and those who dislike the Dixie Chicks have done.
Unless there is a double standard between me and a famous celebrity that is.
**For the record, the thing that got Maher in trouble was saying that the 9/11 terrorists were “braver” than we were. We can argue political stuff all day long but I’m sorry, when you start calling cold-blooded murderers “brave,” that is just indefensible.
The outcry over the comment came not from the Bush administration but from advertisers and viewers, both of whom were justifably outraged over the idiotic remark. As Maher is free to spout off stupidly, don’t you agree that companies are free to pull support from shows they find objectionable?
Fleisher’s comment reads to me as nothing more than him saying “when your dealing with a situation where thousands of americans were murdered, you should probably be mindful of comments you make praising killers.”**
First off, your record is wrong.
Maher didn’t say terrorists were “braver than we are.” What he said, in response to comments about “cowardly terrorist attacks,” was that it takes bravery to fly those planes into the Towers.
Now personally, I don’t think bravery entered into it because I think they were fanatics. To me, implicit in bravery is overcoming fear. If they’re fanatics, then fear never enters into it.
But let’s look at it from another point of view: Which involves more personal risk (which is the essence of bravery)? Flying a plane into a tower when you know it will kill you? Or, as Maher put it, sitting safe and secure in the Oval Office and ordering the lobbing missiles from 2000 miles away?
That, to my mind, is what Maher was comparing and contrasting. Now you can discuss it and dispute it six ways from Sunday, and probably never come to an agreement on it. And that’s fine. Because that’s what a free society is supposed to be about. Because people saying things that you already agree with don’t make you think. It’s the things you violently disagree with that kick the brain into gear.
Which is why it’s vomitous in a free society when there are attempts to shut down people stating unpopular opinions. Because the subtext of the message in such an action is, I don’t want to think. And the moment you don’t want to think, you might as well pack it in.
It seems to me that you’re perfectly content to oversimplify Maher’s comments so as to make him look as unflattering as possible…remarks for which Maher later apologized and clarified (not that that was good enough, of course.) But on the other hand, you’re bending over backwards to give Ari Fleisher a free pass. What he said was clearly an assault on free expression, but you viewed it as an incredibly sensitive notion about how people shouldn’t want to hurt victims of 9/11. If that’s the case, then Fleisher should have done what Maher done: Apologize for saying something that, on the surface, could be misread, and clarify it.
Did he?
PAD
PAD’s latest rant has me thinking about his last one. PAD says that boycotting the Dixie Chicks was wrong because their music had jackall to do with their political view on the war. So they had every right to criticize the President. Except they didn’t criticize him, they insulted him. It was a noticeable theme in the anti-war protest. “I’m against the war, but instead of telling you why, I’m going to say something insulting about George Bush.”
I’ve noticed that PAD does it as well, when he makes comments about Bush’s intelligence. So I wonder how PAD would react to a reviewer who “criticized” his latest Captain Marvel issue by insulting him. “Peter David proves just how fat and ugly he truly is with this latest issue of Captain Marvel.”
Boycotting the Chicks music was made fair game when they made the connection. “Come to our concerts or buy our music and you’ll get an earful of our political views.”
Just so you know though PAD, even though I know you wouldn’t approve, I’d consider joining a boycott of the magazine that would print a review like that about your work. Because that’s a person who can’t keep his personal views and professional views separate.
Maher didn’t say terrorists were “braver than we are.” What he said, in response to comments about “cowardly terrorist attacks,” was that it takes bravery to fly those planes into the Towers.
For the record, what he actually said:
“But also, we should — we have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it’s not cowardly.”
I can see why you might not have wanted to print the actual quote. You are correct, he didn’t say that they were “braver than us”. he said that we were cowrds and they were not. A fine distinction.
I’m willing to believe though that what he meant was what you think he meant. He just isn’t as smart as he thinks he is and got tripped up on his own cleverness.
Look, this nation, since Vietnam, has been risk averse, especially when it comes to sending in ground troops. Even Republicans have said that. And because of that Clinton didn’t want to risk a quagmire by sending in troops to get OBL, and instead opted for cruise missile strikes.
Now, some might call that cowardice, and Maher did. It was the wrong words at the wrong time, but the exact same points have been made by Republicans about this nation’s reluctance to defend itself aggressively in recent decades. Bush himself regularly cites our retreat from Somalia as making us look like cowards. So cowardice has been cited for a long time as problem in American foreign and defense policy ESPECIALLY by conservatives.
PAD’s latest rant has me thinking about his last one. PAD says that boycotting the Dixie Chicks was wrong because their music had jackall to do with their political view on the war. So they had every right to criticize the President. Except they didn’t criticize him, they insulted him. It was a noticeable theme in the anti-war protest. “I’m against the war, but instead of telling you why, I’m going to say something insulting about George Bush.”
I’ve noticed that PAD does it as well, when he makes comments about Bush’s intelligence. So I wonder how PAD would react to a reviewer who “criticized” his latest Captain Marvel issue by insulting him. “Peter David proves just how fat and ugly he truly is with this latest issue of Captain Marvel.”
Boycotting the Chicks music was made fair game when they made the connection. “Come to our concerts or buy our music and you’ll get an earful of our political views.”
Just so you know though PAD, even though I know you wouldn’t approve, I’d consider joining a boycott of the magazine that would print a review like that about your work. Because that’s a person who can’t keep his personal views and professional views separate.
Boy is this so not even close…
Let’s start with the outright lie that it was a “noticeable theme” in the anti-war protests that insults were used in place of criticism. Simply not true and it must have only been noticeable to you because in all the op-ed pieces and news coverage I’ve read, there has been no mention of this.
I would love to see the support for this argument. I mean possibly you could point to, say, protest signs which carry simple slogans but that’s kinda the point of protest signs.
Or is your evidence that those masters of public rhetoric didn’t pull out charts and graphs showing the history of trade relations with the Middle East and economic disparity when they made an off-hand comment during a country music concert? Are you really trying to sell the idea that that was a reasonable expectation?
(And since this whole thing started as an argument that the right tries to deflect criticism by saying “Well yeah but your guy did it”, let me indulge. If you’re really taking the side that fair argument should replace personal criticism, I can only imagine the shame you must have felt when Congress spent millions of dollars of our money to argue about whether the president got oral sex which was oh-so-relevant to Whitewater, right?)
This is so funny because “The Onion” has already savaged this whole state of mind with a “Point/Counter-Point” piece where one person gives a reasoned, logical argument why we shouldn’t be going to attack Iraq taht says, “This will happen and that will happen and that’s bad stuff” and the response is, “No, it won’t. It just won’t. So stop talking about it.”
I think the biggest problem faced by those against the war is that they had way too many reasons and logical arguments. But the opposition would just counter by hitching up their guns, putting on their cowboy hats and saying “Whatever… pansies. We’re going to KICK SOME ÃSS!” and the crowd went wild.
But let’s get to the real point.
The difference between the comic book critic who says that the latest issue of CM proves that Peter David is fat and ugly and the anti-war critic who questions the president’s intelligence is that the president’s intelligence is relevant!
There are legitimate reasons for someone to say that they don’t want their country led into war by a man whose intelligence is… unproven. What valid reason would someone have for saying they don’t want to read a comic book written by a person who is fat and ugly.
What kills me is the sheer egotism and self-importance shown by the right when claiming that anti-war protests were motivated by people who didn’t like a politician. Do you really want to stand behind the idea that all of those people, not just in this country but overseas, were there to pick on one guy? That the people there were there for no other reason than to call the president stupid?
You know, I read some of the posts above and have been thinking about the whole Dixie Chicks controversey and how just recently 2 DJ’s were fired for playing their music in contravention of their radio station’s policy against playing the Dixie Chick’s music. My thoughts are this: When you are an artist in a certain genre, you tend to be pigeonholed within that genre. For example, if you are Bruce Springsteen, Neal Young or any other similar artist and you were to come out with a statement that is similar to the one made by the Dixie Chicks – it would almost be expected. I have seen Bruce Sprinsteen in concert several times and have seen the crowd cheer him on when he says something that leans to the left. That is exactly what his crowd expects to hear from him.
Now I want to preface the next part by saying that I am not a big fan of country music. That being said it seems to me that the fans of country music, especially in their fan base of the South and West tend to be very patriotic, if not more conservative. These are primarily the fans that the Chicks play to (I realize that they also have a large number of fans in the North East on the on the West coast but their core audience seems to be in the South and West). It really should not come as a surprise then that their listening base reacted the way that they did. So the questions is, was there an over reaction by radio stations who would not play their music and by store that would not sell their music – and honestly I would have to say no. If I ran a radio station and knew that if I played a particular song or music by a particular artist that would cause the listener to turn off the radio or, much worse, change the station, I would not play that song. If I owned a store and had a choice of devoting space to something that would sell and something that would not – I would devote the space to something that would sell and significantly diminish or remove the items that do not sell.
I think in time the market will correct itself. American’s with the attention span lower than the lifespan of a gnat (how many people who refused to shop at Exxon becuase of the Exxon-Valdes accident have kept that promise?) will soon forget about the statements made by the Chick’s and people will start listening and buying their music again.
I know I’m going to regret this one, but….
Leaving aside whether it was appropriate for the remark to be made by the President’s press secretary, at least for the moment, what Ari Fleischer said made a lot of sense. It was a very emotional time when sensitivity was running at an all-time high in this country and people did need to be careful what they said. They still do. If nothing else people need to be careful not to offend those they don’t mean to offend.
Does the fact that this remark was made by Ari Fleischer constitute a chilling effect? Possibly. A lot of people seem to think it did, in any case. What that his intention? I don’t have any way of knowing. All I can say is that I didn’t interpret it as a threat to free speech and I still don’t.
As for Maher, I agreed with his main point but to favorably compare the hijackers with the American military showed incredibly poor judgement and incredibly poor taste.
Leaving aside whether it was appropriate for the remark to be made by the President’s press secretary, at least for the moment, what Ari Fleischer said made a lot of sense. It was a very emotional time when sensitivity was running at an all-time high in this country and people did need to be careful what they said. They still do. If nothing else people need to be careful not to offend those they don’t mean to offend.
Does the fact that this remark was made by Ari Fleischer constitute a chilling effect? Possibly. A lot of people seem to think it did, in any case. What that his intention? I don’t have any way of knowing. All I can say is that I didn’t interpret it as a threat to free speech and I still don’t.
That may well have been his intent. Not being a mind-reader, I can’t say. However, as has already been said, his statement can so very easily be interpreted as a “free speech? screw that, we’re at war” sort of statement that it would have been a good idea for him to apologize and/or clarify given how easily it could be (mis?)interpreted.
This is going off on a different tack from Robert’s post, but that’s one of the things that worries me about this administration, from Bush right on down to pretty much anyone except Powell. No one apologizes. No one admits error even when it’s patently obvious one has occurred. On those rare occasions when a clarification is made, it’s frequently with the attitude of “well, fine, we’ll explain what we meant this time, but you’re a fool for jumping to any conclusion other than this.”
No one in the power structure (again, except Powell) has ever, so far as I can remember at least, shown the slightest inclination of wondering whether what they’re doing might not be right. Many, many articles surfaced early in the war about Bush sleeping well at night, never concerned about whether his decisions were the right choices.
I’m sorry, but anyone who can commit thousands of troops to put their lives at risk and who can make the deliberate choice to kill hundreds or thousands of others (be they the “other guys” or not) needs to have enough self-doubt to be questioning his/her actions on a regular basis. I’m not saying a leader should be paralyzed by doubt, but any reasonable leader should be willing and able to look at other points of view without thinking “those poor deluded folks.”
Those who don’t have that capability of doubt are dancing way too close to the border of fanaticism. Absolute certainty is a chimera — you might think you’ve got a grip on it occasionally, but anyone who feels absolutely certain about everything all the time is not someone I want directing traffic, much less taking part in the running of a country (or, at this point, multiple ones).
That penchant for “absolute rightness” (for want of a better term), along with the major-league secrecy fetish this administration has shown from day one, is why I think statements like Ari Fleischer’s are so easily interpreted as opposing free speech. They’re certainly not people who take any sort of criticism well — and they’ve got the power to make “taking criticism badly” one hëll of a threat.
(And on a completely different note, just to show that I’m not mindlessly partisan — I think all the “scandal” about Bill Bennett’s gambling is pretty silly. I got a good chuckle out of it for a few seconds, but given that he never included gambling on the list of things he railed against, I’m not seeing the charges of hypocrisy here at all.)
TWL
Does the fact that this remark was made by Ari Fleischer constitute a chilling effect? Possibly. A lot of people seem to think it did, in any case. What that his intention? I don’t have any way of knowing. All I can say is that I didn’t interpret it as a threat to free speech and I still don’t.
Calling it a clear example of an assault on free expression is nonsense.
If you want an example of an assault, look here:
http://www.boycott-hollywood.us/archives/000245.html
or better, here:
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/009101.php
As for the Bush in the National Guard, look here:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O24122E74
**PAD’s latest rant has me thinking about his last one. PAD says that boycotting the Dixie Chicks was wrong because their music had jackall to do with their political view on the war. So they had every right to criticize the President. Except they didn’t criticize him, they insulted him. It was a noticeable theme in the anti-war protest. “I’m against the war, but instead of telling you why, I’m going to say something insulting about George Bush.”
I’ve noticed that PAD does it as well, when he makes comments about Bush’s intelligence. So I wonder how PAD would react to a reviewer who “criticized” his latest Captain Marvel issue by insulting him. “Peter David proves just how fat and ugly he truly is with this latest issue of Captain Marvel.”**
I’d say you lost me at “rant.”
PAD
Bill Mulligan wrote:
“Interestingly, Andrew Sullivan has mention of this very same topic today. Apparently the New York Times, hardly a Pro-Bush newspaper to any rational reader, printed the following report back on Nov 2000…”
Sullivan, on his own blog, does have a disturbing tendency to cherry-pick history and to conveniently ignore facts or sections of data he cites that are incovenient to his thesis.
For what the article Sullivan was citing also included, see:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh050803.shtml
I do take exception at the idea that the Times was “hardly a Pro-Bush newspaper to any rational reader.” Even the ‘gray lady of journalism’ joined the lemming-like pack in abandoning journalistic standards during 2000 election. Aside from opinion pieces labeled as such, the outpouring of fawning, sycophantic and just plain lazy (as in, ‘let’s just essentially pad and then run this press release, without doing any backgrounding on the contents’) stories ostensibly run as news at the time was beyond astonishing – it was sad and demeaning to the readers.
I think I understand now what annoys me so much about political discussions (using the term lightly) both on the web and in personal conversations. I’m not singling anybody out here, because nearly everyone does this at times, including myself. Now that I’ve finally formulated this principle I’ll try to violate it less:
Nearly everyone, even otherwise very wise and educated people, tend to become very childish when discussing politics and religion. They tend to react violently to those who disagree with them, and they tend to insist that there can be no valid opinion or set of opinions (ie: lifestyle) other than their own. I’m sure we all can point at examples of this occurring in our favorite opponents. That indicates to me that all sides have the same fault but through different perspectives. That kind of approach to subjective opinions destroys the potential of idea exchanges, such as conversations and the Internet. This bugs me because I see all exchanges of ideas as having potential to bring about ideas that can improve the world or the human condition greatly, and that potential seems to be wasted nearly all the time because of human nature.
I’ll have to thank you, PAD, for provoking this idea to come out of hiding from me. The best discussions are those that produce better ideas as a result, though most people, as evidenced by their methods of discussing, seem to disagree with that.
I expect many of you have seen this link, but it’s still amusing:
http://www.theonion.com/onion3701/bush_nightmare.html
James wrote:
**I expect many of you have seen this link, but it’s still amusing:
http://www.theonion.com/onion3701/bush_nightmare.html **
Yeah, I’ve seen it before. Funny.
And disturbing. That story was written just before Bush was inaugurated. It is eeriely prescient.
To the poster named Pack:
Curious as to how you lead a defense in which you argue that anti-war demontrators as a whole never resorted en masse to insults, yet in another argument on this site with me, you and others of your ilk stooped to using insulting language when arguing with me by saying that I’m being stupid in regards to my opinions on stereotypes, which makes you no better than me.
Curious as to how you even felt that way, yet you went to all that trouble to point out on the board as to how you feel that my whole feelings about stereotypes were invalid and ridiculous, not to mention that you took my words out of context and took it very surprisingly personally.
Needless to say, if that’s how someone like you is going to behave when arguing with a perfect stranger on a site that isn’t even your property, then your whole argument in regards to the anti-war demontrators bears no weight and it loses credibility.
Whatever, perhaps you’d care to explain why you felt that you had to be so cynical in the first place when you didn’t have to? You say the anti-war protestors didn’t stoop en masse to using insults, yet on this site, which isn’t even your property, you’re willing to do just that, based solely, I presume, on the grounds that this is the Internet and you can ostensibly get away with such things with ease.
Answering Pack:
He thinks that the demos against the war in Iraq were “anti-war,” and that they were not insulting.
He should go back and see what slogans were being highlighted by the demonstrators. Of course, slogans are very important. Now, many insulted Bush –or Israel or Rumsfeld, etc., and Israel was not even part of the war– while the same or other placards defended Saddam Hussein or supported terrorism against Israel. At an “anti-war” demo in Paris, Arab demonstrators, who were a big part of the “anti-war” demos in Europe, attacked two young Jews with iron bars, eventhough these two Jews in fact were also against the war in Iraq. Arab pro-terrorism demonstrators were also prominent in the DC demos. Hardly what can rightly be called anti-war. Further, the very existence of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was a constant source of terror in the Middle East, both to the population of Iraq living under his tyranny –does the so-called “Left” support an Arab tyranny against Arabs? Or Kurds?– and to the populations of surrounding countries. Not only Israel, but Iran. An estimated 500,000 to one million Iranians died in Saddam’s war against Iran. What would he have done to the Israelis if he could, if he had had the chance, if Menahem Begin had not destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor, supplied by France, in 1981?
As for myself, I was very active as a demonstrator in the 1960s demonstrating against the war in Vietnam. I marched in DC and NYC myself several times. War is horrible. It is evil, but sometimes a necessary evil. As for the notion of right and left, of a political spectrum, it is a ridiculous notion. After all, in the case of Iraq, it was the so-called Left that was protecting Saddam’s inhuman regime, a threat to world peace. If you study the history of the last 250 years, Dear Pack, you may note that what is called Left at one time is right in another, and vice versa. Menahem Begin was called a Communist in the US and British press in the 1940s. Later, he was called a “right-winger.” The Quartet “road map” for “peace” between Israel and the Arabs takes the racist position that Jews do not have the right to live in parts of their historic homeland, the Land of Israel. Many Leftists support this racist position. On the other hand, Britain (the imperial power in the Land of Israel) was very anti-Israel in the 1940s, while the Communist Soviet Union was somewhat supportive of Israel at that time. Today, Britain is still anti-Israel, while post-Communist Russia supports the racist Road Map, although it is less hostile to Israel than the Soviet Union was from the 1950s to the 1990s.
Robert asked:
“I’m just wondering how important Bush Sr. was to be able to allegedly get all those favors for his son.”
Aside from the access that coming from money (and ‘old boy network’ connections) brings, even at that time the Bush name carried a lot of clout in political circles as the legacy of the powerful and influential Senator Prescott Bush, George the elder’s father.
And there is nothing ‘alleged’ about the string-pulling to get ‘W’ into the Guard ahead of those on the waiting list (including those tested out as more qualified for entry). For one, a prominent Texas politico at the time (I’m sure he was the then-Speaker of the House of the Texas legislature, but cannot find a reference to this that includes his name just this minute) has freely admitted being pressured into making phone calls to request such of the appropriate authorities.
The Quartet “road map” for “peace” between Israel and the Arabs takes the racist position that Jews do not have the right to live in parts of their historic homeland, the Land of Israel. Many Leftists support this racist position.
Whoa Tex! The Quartet “road map” gives Israel far more than they were alloted under the 47 partition. Nowhere in the “road map” does it say that jews can’t live somewhere what it does say that if a they want to live in the West Bank or Gaza they should be prepared to live as a citizen of Palestine. Please explain how this is racist.
Evan– First of all, the Land of Israel is the homeland of the Jews. In fact, the Romans called it Judea until the year 135, when Emperor Hadrian changed the name to Palestine in order to further humiliate the Jews after their defeat in the Bar Kokhba uprising, after which Jews were forbidden to live in Jerusalem and the surrounding area, called the polis or colonia of Aelia Capitolina. By the way, the Jews have been a majority in Jerusalem since 1854 (Karl Marx) or at least by 1870, according to other sources.
In 1920, the international community, at the San Remo Conference juridically set up the Jewish National Home in the Land of Israel, resuming use of Hadrian’s name Palestine that the Ottoman Empire had not used. In 1922, the League of Nations endorsed the San Remo decision, recognizing the Jewish connection to the Land in the Mandate document. The British who were entrusted to foster development of the Jewish National Home, betrayed their trust. In 1939 and 1940, they went so far as to ban Jewish land purchase in most of the Mandated area, also drastically reducing the number of Jews allowed to migrate into the country. This as the Holocaust was beginning. The forbidden zone included almost all of what is now called in Israel Judea and Samaria, or in Western parlance, the West Bank –plus Gaza. The Arabs began the war of Israel’s independence at the end of November 1947 by attacking Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, (driving Jews out of their homes), and Jewish traffic on the roads. The 1947 Partition Plan was merely a recommendation, as are all General Assembly resolutions on political issues. It had no force of law. The Arabs rejected it as a solution and made war, driving Jews out of their homes in various places. Thus, the whole country remained legally in the status of the Jewish National Home. Yet, Jordan, which occupied the “West Bank,” passed a law forbidding Jews to live anywhere in its territory. This was the second racist exclusion of Jews from the area in the 20th century, after the previous British land purchase prohibitions. Now the Road Map –following the racist Mitchell and Tenet plans– stipulates that Jews cannot conduct “settlement activity” in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza [JSG]. Settlement activity has been defined by various imperial powers as building houses for Jews to live in, building schools, workshops, factories, extending the cultivated land area, etc. It also calls for Jews to be removed from many of the existing Jewish population centers in JSG, called “settlements.” The Road Map is also racist for equating Jewish settlement activity with the mass murderous terrorism sponsored by the Arafat’s Palestinian Authority. Now, perhaps the Road Map actually says that Jews can live in JSG as citizens of Palestine. Well, this is a sick joke. First, the PLO is not interested in having any significant Jewish population in areas that they control and would work to get rid of them. Consider what Nasser did to the Jews of Egypt who were about 100,000 in 1948. He got rid of them by various laws and pretexts, plus a little violence here and there, nice, comfy jails, etc. Other Arab states did likewise. Next, the Palestinian Authority does not in fact have citizens, but only subjects, since the PA treats its own Arabs as subjects without citizen rights. A self-respecting Jew could not live under PLO control, although they do allow certain kapos of Jewish origin who are political supporters of Arafat to live in their zones of control. But ask yourself how a Jew could live in a state where the official education system and TV and radio are constantly indoctrinating all sorts of Judeophobic lies, where the mosque preachers say that Jews are sons of monkeys and pigs!! [based on a Quranic verse], etc., etc. Consider that the newly created prime minister, Mahmud Abbas, called Abu Mazen, wrote a thesis at a university in Moscow in which he denied the Holocaust and parroted certain lies about the concentration camps fashionable among certain Judeophobic circles in Europe, among such as David Irving and Faurisson, etc. If Abu Mazen is the white hope of Road Map peacemaking, then there is no hope.
Tex you got a lot of points here and I’ll do my best to answer each one.
First of all, the Land of Israel is the homeland of the Jews. In fact, the Romans called it Judea until the year 135,
Yes and no. We all know that when Abraham came to Cannan it was not empty. Even under the peak of the kingdoms of Judea and Israel they were not homogenous societies. Do the decendents of the Cannanites or Philistines have less a claim to the land than the decendents of the Israelites?
In 1920, the international community, at the San Remo Conference juridically set up the Jewish National Home in the Land of Israel
True, but I would point out that a national home is not the same as a homeland. Also the San Remo conference stated that nothing would be done that would “prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities.” A careful reading indicates that clearly the entire Mandate of Palestine which at that time included trans-Jordan was never meant to serve as the national Jewish home.
The Arabs began the war of Israel’s independence at the end of November 1947 by attacking Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, (driving Jews out of their homes), and Jewish traffic on the roads.
Sad but true. And in western areas the force that would become the IDF along with groups like the stern gang drove Arabs from their homes. As the war for Indepence progressed the Israelis drove many Arabs from their homes into Gaza and the West Bank. Rabin himself ordered the explusion of Arabs from several Jerusalem neighborhoods.
The 1947 Partition Plan was merely a recommendation, as are all General Assembly resolutions on political issues. It had no force of law. The Arabs rejected it as a solution and made war, driving Jews out of their homes in various places.
The important point here is that while the Arabs rejected the plan totally the Israelis accepted the idea of partition. They rejected the borders set out by the GA but agreed in concept to the partition of the land.
Now the Road Map –following the racist Mitchell and Tenet plans– stipulates that Jews cannot conduct “settlement activity” in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza [JSG]. Settlement activity has been defined by various imperial powers as building houses for Jews to live in, building schools, workshops, factories, extending the cultivated land area, etc. It also calls for Jews to be removed from many of the existing Jewish population centers in JSG, called “settlements.”
The reason why these plans call for a halt to settlement activity is because even the United States (Israel’s best friend in the world) knows that the reason Israel built them was to more tightly intergrate the territories into Israel proper. Many settlements are built on land seized from Palestinians and often are placed on aquifers that Palestinians are dependent upon. To say that it is racist to demand a strong nation stop exploiting a weak people is questionable at best.
Well, this is a sick joke. First, the PLO is not interested in having any significant Jewish population in areas that they control and would work to get rid of them.
But perhaps if some brave souls would stay in a newly created Palestine they could help bridge the gap between their peoples.
Next, the Palestinian Authority does not in fact have citizens, but only subjects, since the PA treats its own Arabs as subjects without citizen rights.
There are many-many problems with the Palestinian Authority but I think they have been moving in fits toward a democratic pluralistic system.
But ask yourself how a Jew could live in a state where the official education system and TV and radio are constantly indoctrinating all sorts of Judeophobic lies, where the mosque preachers say that Jews are sons of monkeys and pigs!! [based on a Quranic verse], etc., etc.
The same way Arabs live in Israel. Where they are looked upon as second class citizens. As far as the comments in the mosque I’ve heard as bad if not worse from Rabbis associated with the religous parties.
Evan Hanson complained about my characterization of the so-called Middle East “road map” as racist. He claimed that the document offered Jews citizenship in the “Palestinian state.” My response was that even if it did, such an offer would be ludicrous since 1) the current Palestinian Authority statelet has no citizens but only subjects. That is, not even Arafat’s own Arabs are citizens there. He is a murderous dictator. 2) given the Arab record of persecution of Jews in Arab states –I previously mentioned Nasser’s Egypt– no self-respecting Jew would be safe in or would want live under Arab government. Now, I have checked the text of the “road map” and I find that there is no offer to Jews that they can be citizens in the envisioned “Palestinian state.” Hence, there is no contradiction, not even superficial, to my description of the “road map” as racist. I suggest that Evan read the “road map” over again at the link below. Perhaps he just made a mistake. In that case, he should correct it. I will have more comments later. Shalom for now.
The Road Map in Full
Well, having read the previous revelations, all I can say is that this Mr. Hanson’s been caught in a lie. Obviously, his prejudices got the better of him.
Mr. Hanson, to say the least, I am truly disappointed in you – for making ludicrous implications without even providing any evidence of any sort to back up you claims and for even running the very serious risk of insulting rabbinical figures by saying that they’re as bigoted against Arabs as the PLO’s educational system and media and mosque preachers against Jews. This is very serious. Perhaps you’d care to explain why you even went to all that trouble in the first place to challenge Tex’s argument when you didn’t have to?
Tex, your contention was that the Road Map is racist but you have yet to offer any evidence of this. The Road Map does not specifically say that Jews could be citizens of a Palestinian State but it does not exclude them from citizenship. If it did, now that would be racist. You say no self-respecting Jew would “be safe or want to live under an Arab government.” This is part of the problem, if Jews and Arabs would embrace their brotherhood the world would be a better place.
Mr. Green, first I would like to make one thing very clear. I never lie. If I have misspoken on some factual issue I will retract any statement when presented with proper citation.
Obviously, his prejudices got the better of him.
I’m not sure what you’re implying here. I assure you my prejudice towards peace over war is not clouding my judgement on this issue. You say I insult Rabbincal figures which I don’t believe I did. Would you reconsider my statement if I had inserted the word some Rabbis associated with the religous parties. And if just to show I’m not making this up I wonder if you’re familiar with Rabbi Ovadia Yosef of the Shas Party. If not feel free to read up on him at the BBC.
Finally, I have to say this will be my last post on this thread. This is PAD’s board and I doubt he or anyone else besides the three of us is interested in what we have to say. If Tex and Avi would like to continue this discussion feel free to email me.
I’ll leave you guys with one final thought. I’ve been following and arguing about this conflict for twenty years and in my experience most people fall into two groups. Group one believes that the conflict is a political one caused by poor planning, colonialism, misunderstandings etc. These people are easy to argue with. Group two believes that the problem is a lack of recognition that the Jewish people through their covenant with God are entitled to all of the land of Israel, the West Bank, Gaza and probably more. My father-in-law is falls into this group. Unfortunately this group isn’t easy or pleasant to argue with because to argue against their position is to argue against God’s divine plan. Take it from me that’s not an argument that’s easy to win.
Okay, it took me awhile to get around to this, but anyway, in regards to the “road map”, I will take it upon myself, quite simply, to say that what makes it racist is that it advocates forcing Jews to give up parts of the Land of Israel to which they have a national claim, and to which the Arabs by contrast have none.
Ovadia Yosef: I know him, and I want to point out that personally, I am disappointed with him for reasons that you by contrast probably aren’t: because he supported surrendering parts of the Land of Israel to the PLO, which I would strongly advise that you don’t treat as if they’re %100 legitimate or as if they deserve to rule territory for any reason. While as for Yosef, I would strongly advise you not to base your perceptions of rabbinical figures upon one rabbi of his sort alone.
I might also point out that Jews have every right to defend their positions and national claims/rights to the Land of Israel, and to imply that a perfect stranger is lying is simply non de-rigueur.
I cannot tell you nor anyone else how to run their lives or conduct an argument, but if I were you, Mr. Hanson, I would consider it a good idea not to pick fights with people whom I don’t even know personally online, and most certainly not to act like a know-it-all. I recommend that you try reading some Jewish media sources such as The Jerusalem Post or even the Jewish World Review and to take a more in depth look at Israel from the inside before making a final judgement. And I might also suggest that you bear in mind something that may have been said by Winston Churchill: “A lie travels the globe faster than the truth has a chance to put its pants on.” In other words, before you start taking most of what many media sources in the US and Europe say for granted, bear in mind that if it’s widely published and hammered away with all over the place, it may not be true.