Meet the cult leaders of the damned- Cindy Sheehan and Stormfront's Jamie Kelso.
Posted on 12/27/2007 1:37:55 PM PST by SJackson
If George W. Bush were running for president today on his current Mideast policy, he probably would lose the votes of many who have praised him as Israel's best friend ever in the Oval Office.
In 2000, right-of-center pro-Israel voters were attracted by his vow to quickly move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, and his determination not to following the footsteps of his father and Bill Clinton into the Mideast peace process swamp. They were delighted when he snubbed Yasser Arafat.
He's come a long way since then, and so have those admirers. The trouble is, they've gone in different directions.
Bush is making his first presidential trip to Israel in a few weeks to follow up on his efforts begun last month at Annapolis to revive peace negotiations intended to establish a Palestinian state before he leaves office in 13 months.
The Christian Zionists who are a significant part of his political base on the Christian right, on the other hand, are more determined than ever to block Palestinian statehood. Along with Orthodox Jewish groups, these evangelicals are better organized and more assertive than they were eight years ago, and even more vehemently opposed to the administration policies that led the recent edition of The Economist to profile Bush as "Mr. Palestine."
They counter Bush's cautious optimism about peace with hysterical warnings about the betrayal of Israel. They don't even trust the secular Palestinians who Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert are calling sincere and willing peace partners.
So where can they turn? Not to the Democrats, who are trying to support Bush's new approach without talking about it very much. The Democrats worry that Annapolis was just another photo op; they want Bush to take the peace process seriously and give it the presidential attention it needs.
Democrats don't want to get too close to Bush any more than the Republican presidential hopefuls do lest his unpopularity and reputation for incompetence rub off on them.
Democrats are also fearful that if they start talking about peace, the hawks and hard-liners will begin smearing them as anti-Israel. The Republican Jewish Coalition has spent millions in recent years on its campaign to destroy the bipartisan pro-Israel consensus and turn Israel into a partisan wedge issue, tying all Democrats to Jimmy Carter and other critics of Israel.
And, of course, the Democrats will retaliate by trying to paint Republicans as a bunch of bigoted know-nothings, and tie them to Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan and their ilk.
Among Republican presidential hopefuls, there is considerable disdain for the centerpiece of the Bush administration's Mideast policy -- the road map for peace. And that's understandable in light of their avid courtship of the party's powerful social and religious conservative bloc, as well as contributions from pro-Israel hard-liners.
Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, writing in Foreign Affairs magazine, said that "too much emphasis has been placed" on Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, which would "assist the creation of another state that will support terrorism."
That's much the same charge that candidate Bush leveled against the Clinton administration eight years ago.
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, Sen. John McCain and former Sen. Fred Thompson were all critical of Bush convening the Annapolis conference, suggesting that the Palestinians aren't ready for peace.
So all you're likely to hear about the Middle East -- unless something dramatic happens -- is a plethora of pap and pandering from both sides of the divide.
Candidates in both parties will talk about how much they love Israel, hate terrorists, despise Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and don't think much of Jimmy Carter. But don't expect much illumination about what these aspiring leaders of the free world would do about Middle East foreign policy.
The only exceptions come from opposite ends of the political spectrum: Republican Ron Paul on the right and Democrat Dennis Kucinich on the left, neither of whom would be counted among Israel's top 425 friends in the House of Representatives.
Republican candidates seem to be avoiding any embrace of Bush's Middle Eastern policies for fear of running afoul of their party's hard-liners. And for their part, Democrats aren't anxious to say much of anything nice right now about Bush and his administration.
But all should be praying he succeeds because, as the Economist profile said, "only by exercising uncharacteristically bold leadership can Bush fulfill his ambition of being the father of Palestinian statehood and set the two foes firmly on the road to peace."
Here's what I make of it: a liberal columnist simply expressing the typical, credulous, liberal line -- that peace is possible between barbarians and civilized society by appeasing the former.
I understand what you mean with respect to the present Pali "leadership," but there is sometimes a fine line between being an idealist/eternal optimist and "nutjob." But Abbas is not the man for Israel to make "peace" with; his record speaks for itself.
There is no “palestine” nor any so-called palestinians but for various conglomerations of predominantly islamist arabs who, for whatever God forsaken reason, Israel feels compelled to have to put up with.
I suggest you listen to the discussion. It’s very good.
The reason why I was taken aback by the last sentence is because I pretty much agreed with the basic political facts as stated earlier by Bloomfield: that the GOP presidential candidates are distancing themselves from the Bush “peace process”, while the Democrats, by keeping quiet, are tacitly supporting it. So, while making sense there, he kind of lost his train of thought at the end. Of course, deficits in reasoning capability are very common amongst the liberal literati.
>There is no “palestine” nor any so-called palestinians but for various conglomerations of predominantly islamist arabs who, for whatever God forsaken reason, Israel feels compelled to have to put up with.<
I wonder what their reaction would be if Condi Rice stepped back and said, “Have at ‘em, we won’t even watch.”
I envision a short violent attack with the result being a drastic reduction in the ME Arabian population count.
Do you have a specific Pali that you would like to sign the *peace* agreement? Then how about controlling the radical rugriders who refuse to believe that the agreement has value and should be followed? Do you have a specific person for that task also?
>Nukes floating around the Islamic world is a completely unacceptable state of affairs to all rational people. It’s dangerous enough that Pakistan has a nuke arsenal. ...and that alone could come back to haunt us. Toss Iran and the rest of the big Islamic players in to the nuclear mix and the situation becomes exponentially more hairy.<
Some people will not be able to grasp this but allow me to try anyway. There are people who benefit from advancing the probability that their enemies are more violent and deadly than they actually are. Yes, there is lots of money, billions of dollars and powerful employment positions to be be had by allowing the uninformed general population to remain frightened of neighboring countries and foreign governments.
There is a way to change this. Instead of fighting wars with the knowledge that the longer the war goes on, the more money there is be to be made. Yes, the idea of making money from wars is a popular one in some communities.
I suggest that we fight wars to win them as quickly as possible. No slowdowns so the UN or media can come in and make comments. No intentions of establishing embassies or red cross centers, just graveyards for all who resist. That means don’t just kick ass and take names, capturing as many prisoners as possible.
No, kill everyone who shows up for the fight and refuses to immediately surrender. Let God sort out to as to who didn’t need killing. Then repeat this method until there is no enemies left.
Let the world know that this is how you will fight everyone who makes the slightest attempt to harm you or your fellow citizens.
No doubt. But it doesn't take a propaganda campaign to sell the fact that Islamists with nukes are indeed a threat worth taking quite seriously. Some threats are indeed overblown -- that particular one isn't. Nor is the threat posed by our wide-open borders.
The remainder of your post is spot on -- always fight to win using overwhelming force. No UN resolution BS, no social engineering, no nation building. .....just ass-kicking and name-taking.
Who said Bush is my hero? Paul wouldn’t let Israel fight, Paul would abandon them to the islamists.
Meet the cult leaders of the damned- Cindy Sheehan and Stormfront's Jamie Kelso.
Who said or where is it said that Paul wouldn’t allow Israel to fight for it to be a free nation? Paul views Israel as an independent country, not as an idiot step brother that requires guidance from Big Brother.
Where and how do you think Israel funds her military?
Enlighten me please.
//snip
The United States provides billions of dollars of military aid to Israel each year and the latest military operations in Lebanon and Gaza reflect a fighting machine bolstered by U.S. weapons, jet fuel and technology.
According to the U.S. Congressional Research Service, American aid to Israel has averaged at least $2 billion a year (two-thirds of which has been military assistance) since 1971.
However, U.S. think tank Foreign Policy in Focus says that figure has risen significantly since George W. Bush became president in 2001.
"During the Bush administration from 2001-2005, Israel received $10.5 billion in Foreign Military Financing -- the Pentagon's biggest military aid program -- and $6.3 billion in U.S. arms deliveries," FPIF says, quoting figures from a facts book published by the U.S. Department of Defense.
"The most prominent of these is a $4.5 billion sale of 102 Lockheed Martin F-16s to Israel."
As well as the F-16 Falcon fighter jets made by Texas-based Lockheed Martin, the U.S.-supplied arsenal includes Boeing-built F-15 Eagle fighters, AH-64 Apache attack helicopters and the Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles, made by Massachusetts-based Raytheon.
On July 21, the New York Times reported that the U.S. was "rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs" to Israel, which requested the shipment as it began air strikes against Lebanon on July 12.
>American aid to Israel has averaged at least $2 billion a year (two-thirds of which has been military assistance) since 1971.<
I am beginning to understand why 85% of Jewish Americans are Democrats and Israel is so deeply engulfed in socialism.
Democrats believe that government should provide everything possible! I also understand why you find Ron Paul so offensive. He would take the candy bag away. Are you sure you aren’t a Democrat too?
Cute attack, but we have a defense treaty with Israel. What does the Constitution say about honoring treaties?
I may have caught the gist of what you are saying wrong so forgive me for asking - Are you saying that U.S. aid to Israel is a “candybag”?
How long are you expecting Israel to exist as a free nation with all this crap that Rice and Bush are tossing out? Do you really want to support a Palestinian takeover of Israel because that’s what is happening right before your eyes. Yes, the next President is going to go along with this plan too, Democrat or Republican.
If I was Jewish, I would do some heart searching about supporting Olmert and Bush because they are sending Israel down the New World Order trail. Regional unification is the gameplan ......... of the United Nations.
Do you have another name for foreign aid. I’m sure the Arabs view our dollars as free candy from the Yankees.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.