If they like him, we’re done for
We are encouraged that President Bush, best known for waging war in Iraq, has finally accepted the challenge of peacemaker. –NY Times editorial
A line like that makes your heart stop. The NY Times has not a kind word for the man in seven years, and suddenly they respect him, they are “encouraged,” he is a “peacemaker”? G-d forbid he should actually turn out to be what they wish and hope. If George Bush gets a favorable editorial in the NY Times, can the Nobel Peace Prize be far behind? G-d forbid. Pray for Israel.
Meanwhile the same issue of the NY Times features a dyspeptic word from the comfortably predictable Maureen Dowd, Bush Hater. She still hates him. Baruch Hashem. Sigh of relief.
He wants to look like he’s taking the problem of an Israeli-Palestinian treaty seriously when his true motivation is more cynical: pacifying the Arab coalition and holding it together so that he can blunt Iran’s sway. –Maureen Dowd, NY Times
I hope to G-d she’s right, and that’s all it is.
Dowd, for once, was onto something. Whenever things get tight in the oil-rich part of the Middle East, the State Department and President (not just one or the other, and not just the ones we have now) want to throw the Saudis a bone in the form of concessions by Israel.
Getting tough with the Saudis and the like for financing terrorism and hatred of Jews never enters their minds—they won’t ever bite the hand that feeds them.
In my humble opinion, an Orthodox Jewish website should not be disparaging the President of our country.
I hope Hillel repeats that thought when Hillary gets in to clean the mess up.
Bob Miller: If Maureen Dowd is right, Bush is not planning to give the Arabs anything, but is only feigning in order to keep the bad guys (somewhat) allied with us against the even-worse guys. I hope she is right, and Bush and Rice are just putting on a show.
Hillel: I don’t normally disparage Bush, in fact I have admired him and defended him consistently. He is a decent man and has been mostly right about the Islamists, certainly he did the world and Israel a HUGE favor by getting rid of Saddam. But convening a conference of fifty wolves and one lamb to discuss the future of the lamb certainly makes us feel, at least, some trepidation.
Bush may or may not be a decent man. He may or may not be more intelligent than the NYT and their ilk give him credit for being. But one thing is true, that is that he does not control foreign policy and neither does Congress. The career people in the State Department do. They kick around their ideas, sometimes slightly disguised, on the pages of the journal _Foreign Affairs_. The pecking order is well-established and it doesn’t like Jews, especially the uppity ones. Meanwhile the Israeli establishment and US court Jews keep pecking as usual, competing to do America’s bidding to keep Israel as a client state of the US.
Carter got us to give away Sinai. Clinton twisted our arms to give away Hebron and Shechem. Olmert would trade Jerusalem to join the likes of Arafat for the igNobel Prize.
The pathology that causes a US president in his last year to seek “peace” by twisting Israel’s arm smacks of Einstein’s aphorism about insanity being defined by lowering a bucket into an empty well yet again and expecting to retrieve water.
The path of peace begins with paving the Saudi-pensioned Arabists of Foggy Bottom and anyone who has a Carter or Baker or Clinton or Rice on their Rolodex as part of the “peace process” is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Longlasting peace has never come through diplomacy… it has come through from a benign conqueror dictating terms.
As much as Giuliani’s selection of pro-Israel advisors intrigues me, if he doesn’t eagerly want to jettison Condi (who has become as laughable as Maddy Albright in her appeasing tyrants), he’s not going to be much of an improvement… though probably still orders of magnitude better than the Mrs. Arafat-smooching alternative.
Any candidate who says that on January 20, 2009 they will propose legislation to sever the benefits of any ex-State employee currently in the employ as a lobbyist or attorney of a nation ranked worse than 5 by Freedom House (which ranks nations annually from 1-best to 7-worst) will get my enthusiastic support.
Here is a link to the Dowd article. It is well worth reading:
HILLEL: In my humble opinion, an Orthodox Jewish website should not be disparaging the President of our country.
Ori: I assume you mean that it is inappropriate for us as guests to criticize any leader of the country where we live. I disagree – according to the US, we’re not guests here but citizens. Citizens in a democracy are supposed to vote, criticize the government, etc.
To quote Mark Twain: “The Jews have no party; they are non-participants.” Perhaps you have let the secret out and given yourself away. It seems hardly a credit to the race that it is able to say that; or to you, sir, that you can say it without remorse; more than you should offer it as a plea against maltreatment, injustice, and oppression. Who gives the Jew the right, who gives any race the right, to sit still, in a free country, and let somebody else look after its safety?
To He Who Remembers (same goes for Charles Hall)- from reading your comments on other blogs, it’s clear you are a baby boomer, probably still getting your information from newspapers and the evening news telecast. If I were in your shoes, I’d probably think Clinton was going to win, too. Older democrats are always shocked they keep losing, because the old fashioned media is always in their corner, propping them up. Here’s telling you now, you can read all the stories you want of how H. Clinton is a “front runner”, is “in command”, etc. Come election time, if nominated, she will lose, and lose very badly, no matter who the GOP nominates. The majority of the country are not NYC baby boomer Jews, and are not impressed by a woman running around with Barbara Streisand as her shill.