Oh dear... did Bush really say this?

Didn't even read it but I'm sayin' yes, he really said that. I haven't the energy to defend Tex so let's just pick better Republicans next time, m'kay?
 
Unfortunately yes, he did say that.

But let's step back a moment. This isn't a Bushism...we've had a stonecold attitude toward the defense of Israel for decades now. For example, LBJ refused to authorize rescue for the USS Liberty after it was deliberately attacked by the Israelis because he didn't want to upset their government. The fucking Russians had to come to the Liberty's aid.

Support of Israel is an American policy that needs to vanish, and it won't vanish so long as fundementalist asswipes have any foothold on Capitol Hill.
 
Yep -- and here's something else that's been said before and will be said again and again as long as it remains true: The U.S. defense and supply of Israel is the number one reason why we are the target of any middle eastern terrorist group. It's the only reason we ever made it onto their radar. Yes, they're religious fanatics. Yes, they think our way of life is decadent.

But was there ever any animosity on their part toward the United States before Israel existed? We were just as "decadent" then. We were even more blatantly Christian -- read "infidels" -- then. Our financial and military backing of Israel is the only thing that changed between then and now.
 
A letter that I just emailed to Arkansas' state newspaper, the Democrat-Gazette:

To His Excellency, The President of the United States: Sir, since 2000 I have attempted to provide moral support for your administration. I have vehementally debated those who have decried your policies. I have thoroughly researched in depth historical factors that underpin your decisions. In short, I have tried to be fair, supportive, and understanding of the Bush administration in whatever direction it has taken for the past five years.

There is one obstacle that constantly hinders my progress, Mr. President, and that is you. Quite frankly Sir, you've said and done some of the most unintelligent things I've ever witnessed, and that's really saying something.

Would it be possible, in the next three years, for you to stop and give some serious thought to things you say and do beforehand, and therefore not embarrass the American people? There's no sense in giving the Democrats, who already have a monopoly on irrationality, any more ammo to misdirect the public away from their lackwit and destructive policies. I would appreciate any help you could give me in this regard.

A few more things: since you have shown to have little respect for the law, could you also find time to circumvent the Posse Comitatus act and bring home enough troops to patrol our southern border? The impromptu immigration situation is really getting out of hand, and I would prefer sentries who have grown used to shooting moving targets, not to mention the luxury of arguing with a computer over the telephone in only one language.

What else? Ah, yes. I've heard your policy over the defense of Israel. Is it possible that our blind support for a nation which has continually expressed contempt for America since they hit the ground running in 1948 isn't the smartest way to approach foreign policy in the Middle East? Is it just possible that support for Israel is what has brought Moslem fanatics down on our necks time and time again? Rather than proclaim them to be the "bad guys," as if this were all some hackneyed John Wayne movie, isn't it possible we've given the aforementioned fanatics a reason to target us? I understand that you have thousands of supporters who insist on unconditional support of Israel due to some obscure verse in the Bible, so I wonder if you read the Bible while you eat porkchops for dinner. If you ever want to play a rousing game of "Pick The Obscure Bible Verse" then come on down and see me; I'm a master at it.

I contend, Mr. President, that the standing policy of support for Israel....a nation that attempted to blow the USS Liberty out of the water in 1967 because its crew witnessed Israeli atrocities during the Six Day war, a nation that has consistently pointed Arab terrorists toward American citizens abroad and American embassies abroad to deflect them from Israeli citizens, a nation whose intelligence service hordes information that could help us win your "war on terror" but won't share it, a nation with a Prime Minister who publicly proclaimed that Israel controlled America...is a lunatic policy that will consistently cripple us until we stop it. Someone needs to tell the fundamentalists "that's nice, now go away" and start making decisions that benefit America. That someone can be you or it can be the next guy who warms that seat. I don't care who it might be, so long as he has the backbone to get it done.
Click to expand...
 
CoyoteUgly said:
Support of Israel is an American policy that needs to vanish, and it won't vanish so long as fundementalist asswipes have any foothold on Capitol Hill.
Click to expand...
Jewish or Christian?
 
I'd say so....

After reading some of the more provocative threads regarding Jews, I'd say that one is the sheep and the other the wolf. Neither should be in power. George Bush is as sheepish as they come.

I'm surprised there are people who get riled up about holocaust discussion but act lukewarm when it comes to current events like this.
 
Messenger said:
I'm surprised there are people who get riled up about holocaust discussion but act lukewarm when it comes to current events like this.
Click to expand...
Why?

There's not much to get riled up here. If someone claims the Holocaust never happened, it's bound to stir up argument. If someone says the US's relationship with Israel is unhealthy...

...there's not much to dispute. The only thing to dispute potentially is why, and whether we want to talk about Zionist conspiracies or evangelical nuts.
 
^^Personally, I have to ask: What difference does it make whether there's a Zionist conspiracy or not? You know, when the highest elected official in this country is openly and unapologetically behaving like a puppet of Zionism on national television; when an American naval vessel can be attacked by a foreign power and that attack is just forgiven away; when an American college student can be killed by a soldier of our ally and that is just forgiven away; when we've given over $1.6 trillion to this country in exchange for the privilege of settling their score with their regional neighbors... yeah. No signs of conspiracy whatsoever.
 
TJHairball said:
Why?

There's not much to get riled up here. If someone claims the Holocaust never happened, it's bound to stir up argument. If someone says the US's relationship with Israel is unhealthy...
Click to expand...
I meant Bush. There are some people who openly support him and aren't subjected to anything even approaching the treatment holocaust deniers are.
 
The Question said:
^^Personally, I have to ask: What difference does it make whether there's a Zionist conspiracy or not? You know, when the highest elected official in this country is openly and unapologetically behaving like a puppet of Zionism on national television; when an American naval vessel can be attacked by a foreign power and that attack is just forgiven away; when an American college student can be killed by a soldier of our ally and that is just forgiven away; when we've given over $1.6 trillion to this country in exchange for the privilege of settling their score with their regional neighbors... yeah. No signs of conspiracy whatsoever.
Click to expand...
It looks more like a very heavy bias and not an active conspiracy. That's what makes you guys look so tinfoil-hat-freaky sometimes.
 
The Question said:
No signs of conspiracy whatsoever.
Click to expand...
When you're familiar with the theology of the hatchet groups in question, it makes perfect sense for them to be doing that.

There needs to be a State of Israel so the world can end. Which is a good thing. Well, in their view of things.

If there is a conspiracy, they certainly don't have to do very much work to get things done.
 
Messenger said:
It looks more like a very heavy bias and not an active conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Let's review that, then.

con·spir·a·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-spîr-s)
n. pl. con·spir·a·cies

1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
Click to expand...

Right there we've got it. The executive branch cannot possibly be so stupid that they don't realize that U.S. support of Israel is a prime motive (if not the prime motive) for Islamic aggression against American targets. Their support of Israel, despite this risk, runs against American interest -- it is subversive. Israel has also violated international law on multiple occasions; the United States government has supported those violations of international law, making the United States government an accessory in Israel's illegal activities, including the dismissal of the unwarranted attack on the American ship Liberty, the murders of members of her crew and the murder of American Rachel Corrie, the extrajudicial execution of Palestinian civilians, illegal seizure of their property, illegal abduction of John Demjanjuk, illegal abduction of Adolph Eichmann, violations of multiple U.N. resolutions, et cetera, et cetera. In point of fact, the United States government, through its support of Israel financially and militarily, is accessory to all of these crimes. That meets the dictionary definition of conspiracy.

But then, I tend to use definitions which are technically correct, rather than rhetorically convenient. I have to assume the definition of the word conspiracy you're working from is the one that reads:

con·spir·a·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-spîr-s)
n. pl. con·spir·a·cies

1. A silly idea somebody just pulled out of their ass based on nothing whatsoever.
Click to expand...
 
Just as frequently used:
1: a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act
Click to expand...
The key point is secret agreement. Secrecy is intrinsic to the common notion of conspiracy.

There is no secrecy in the US choice to support Israel... nor did the US gov't enter into an agreement with Israel to, say, destroy the USS Liberty. Refused to do a dang thing about it, yes. Does this support make the US gov't an accessory? Sure.

Conspirator? Am I part of some liberal conspiracy to advance the idea of poly marriages? I may argue extensively for their legal recognition, i.e., support them, but I'm not entered into any covert agreement with anyone else to do so.

I'm having trouble buying that there's some covert agreement which is causing the US to support Israel, when there is a clear motivation already existing; as I said, if there is a conspiracy, they don't seem to have to work hard.
 
TJHairball said:
Just as frequently used:The key point is secret agreement. Secrecy is intrinsic to the common notion of conspiracy.
Click to expand...

You'll note that you had to alter the technically correct definition in order to take this position.

There is no secrecy in the US choice to support Israel... nor did the US gov't enter into an agreement with Israel to, say, destroy the USS Liberty. Refused to do a dang thing about it, yes. Does this support make the US gov't an accessory? Sure.
Click to expand...

And that's all they have to be in order to meet the definition of a conspiracy -- a willing accessory.

Conspirator? Am I part of some liberal conspiracy to advance the idea of poly marriages?
Click to expand...

No, because you fail to meet the two central requirements of that definition -- you're not 1. working with someone to accomplish your objective 2. through illegal means. That's what it takes in order to establish conspiracy. You don't meet either of those requirements; the U.S./Israel relationship does.

I'm having trouble buying that there's some covert agreement which is causing the US to support Israel, when there is a clear motivation already existing; as I said, if there is a conspiracy, they don't seem to have to work hard.
Click to expand...

First of all, the definition provided makes no mention of secrecy. Second, even if it did, the politicians who support Israel, sometimes in spite of the best interests of the American public, aren't doing it for nothing. It's reasonable to assume that they reap personal benefit from it in some way; likely through political and/or financial support. If that is the case -- and, again, it's reasonable to assume so -- then the exact form and volume of support they receive in exchange for their cooperation would be... secret.
 
TQ is right on the money. The 9/11 attacks were, as Malcolm X would say, "The chickens coming home to roost".

If you support a country that 3/4 of the rest of the world hate with a psychopathic religious fervor, you've got to expect to be attacked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top