Thursday, May 15, 2008

Bush Hits Sore Spot In Knesset Speech

President Bush addressed the Israeli Knesset and condemned the philosophy of appeasement saying “Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."
The Democratic reaction was swift and furious. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called of Republican presidential candidate John McCain to repudiate President Bush's alleged swipe at Barack Hussein Obama, who Bush did not even mention by name.
Obama himself critcicised the Bush speech as an obvious dig at him, characterising it as "a false political attack".
It seems that Obama has a guilty conscience. There are plenty of critics of the war in Iraq who could reasonably be called appeasers. The chorus of Democratic condemnation of Bush's speech is a clear message to the American people that Obama might well fit that description.
As laughable as this episode might be, there is a sinister undertone. It is quite reasonable for the candidates to discuss philosophical and tactical differences in their approach to diplomacy and war. Indeed, the public needs to be informed about differences between parties and candidates.
For Nancy Pelosi to call upon McCain to disassociate himself from Bush's speech is totally uncalled for. The ideas expressed in the speech belong in a public forum. Thankfully, McCain stood firmly by the President . The Democrats are vulnerable on national security issues. It seems that they want to dampen any discussion in that area of government policy.
The Democrats want to focus on the economy. Though presidential policies can have a quick and profound effect in the military sphere, economic policies can be for the President like an old man planting an apple tree, who most likely would not be around to see the tree bear fruit. Many of the economic problems today such as the epidemic of mortgage foreclosures and our mushrooming foreign trade deficit have been years in the making. The temptation to engage in demagoguery when talking about the economy is hard to resist. A coherent economic policy takes a level of consensus and cooperation that does not seem likely in the near future.
The military and economic spheres are closely connected. The world would be a far different place if the Shah of Iran had not been overthrown during the Carter presidency. The military and diplomatic blunder of failing to stand by the Shah continues to haunt us today with the fallout of regional, political and economic instability.
When a doctor is examining a patient and the patient yells, he knows he has found the sore spot, and he knows how to proceed. The Democrats just yelled. I think the Republicans know what to do


video Here is Bush's speech Judge for yourself
Comments only Copyright 2008 by Magdeburger Joe of magdeburgerjoe.com and thewinterriders.com

3 comments:

Prof. Dr. Stanley Collymore said...

Listening to George W. Bush’s rant about the Nazis and appeasement and using this bogus and disingenuous misrepresentation of the truth to have a cheap shot at Barack Obama, in the Knesset of all places, really beggars belief.

Didn’t the Ashkenazi Jews present and to whom George W. Bush was speaking, along with their kith and kin in the United States, as well their Zionist supporters not know the truth of George Bush’s own family, or are they just as hypocritical as he his, or have convenient memories? Namely, that one of George W. Bush’s own grandfathers was the US banker for Hitler’s Nazi party that provided the funds to that political entity, and the other grandfather was the CEO of the company that provided the zyklon B gas that was used to exterminate those six (6) million Jews that George W. Bush - who is fully cognisant of what his grandfathers did and has himself profited personally and handsomely from all the money they jointly amassed from this murderous enterprise - is now dishonestly shedding crocodile tears over?

Anyone with a working brain cell in either his or her head knows that many of the current problems in the world stem from America’s post-war, highly arrogant and very imperialistic policies. And it’s this control-freakism that successive US administrations have adopted that is adding fuel to an already dangerous conflagration. Dialogue is required to solve this problem but not dialogue that has pre-conditions set to them, since such an attitude only inflames and accentuates the sense of wrongdoing that has been done to the victims themselves as well as their descendants. Barack Obama recognises this. And that is the way forward - not the warmongering attitudes of Bush, McCain, Liebermann and others of their ilk.

What is even more distressing is that those who are the most warmongering of all are the very ones who think that while they have an omnipotent right to govern America and de facto the rest of the world and even to initiate unnecessary wars to sate their obsessional machismo, these are the very people who aren’t prepared to put themselves or their families in harm’s way to defend what they think they have a birthright to. This applies also to Hillary Clinton whose husband dodged the draft by spending the entire Vietnam War holed up in Britain. Yet his wife who was with him then throughout that time doesn’t now or did she ever question his ability or right to be Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces.

John McCain is instinctively hailed by many in the US as a war hero? I served as a fighter pilot in the British Royal Air Force. So I know something about the military. John McCain was involved, through no fault of his, in another illegal war, where the American public was lied to about the reasons why America was engaged in, or had to be engaged in that Asian war. But he spent much of that war in captivity as a prisoner of war. I would suggest that those who accord him the accolade of war hero look up the meaning of the word hero. The real heroes are those who were involuntarily sent off to fight, did so valiantly, managed to survive and came home again; being shot down from an aircraft thousands of feet up in the air doing bomb raids on defenceless people below who didn’t have the equipment or matching firepower to hit back, then inadvertently or incompetently crashing one's aircraft, bailing out and getting yourself captured, and held as a POW isn’t my notion of what a hero is. And why shouldn’t John McCain have been tortured, bearing in mind what the Americans were routinely doing to the Vietnamese people?

Who can forget the image of that young Vietnamese girl aflame with US Napalm and fleeing for her life? Against the odds she survived and bizarrely lives in the United States; which says a great deal about her humanity and willingness to forgive those who sought to kill her, as well as giving a clear insight into the mindset of those who caused this outrage. One of many such arbitrary, militaristic situations worldwide that begs the question: “Shouldn’t we as human beings, regardless of where we live, be promoting more of what this previously imperilled young girl evidently represents and which is prescient-mindedly exemplified in what Barack Obama is espousing and genuinely stands for but is automatically, cavalierly and dishonestly being attacked for by those who profit from war and the exploitation of others, rather than opting for the asinine, self-defeating and Stockholm-Syndrome driven machismo that John McCain and his Zionists supporters represent, and who on cue quite disingenuously bleat at every opportunity afforded them about what happened to Europe’s Jews? And using the same criteria that John McCain and others apply to himself as regards his alleged heroism, is this Vietnamese female also a heroine in American eyes? Or should one be cynical and say that she should be grateful for what happened to her during that Asian war because what happened to her now allows her to live in the Land of the Free – namely the United States – an opportunity that previously would not have been accorded her? Would anyone dare use such an argument in respect of the Ashkenazi Jews who derived a state of their own and a nuclear capacity now greater than even that of the UK as a direct result of the holocaust? Most definitely not; nor should they.

Crucially, wouldn’t the Americans if they were placed in the exact same position to that which the Vietnamese found themselves in during the sixties not be doing the same to their enemies, especially if they were the victims of an immoral, unprovoked and deceitful war? Yes you would! One has only got to look at the Bush/Cheney doctrine of extraordinary rendition; torture, water-boarding, and the obscenities and atrocities of Abu Ghraib; Guantanamo Bay etc. etc. in response to 9/11 to get an idea of how hypocritical all this crap about John McCain's heroism is. Are the detainees at Guantanamo Bay also heroes; and should they be classed as such by the citizens of their home countries as well as those elsewhere who didn’t and still don’t support America’s illegal war in Iraq? Is Abu Massoud - beaten, tortured and murdered by my country Britain, an ally of the US, with our Ministry of Defence paying out millions of Pounds to his family for his brutal murder and with the British government now forced to have a public enquiry over the murder of this innocent man - also examples of heroism to use the jaundiced arguments of the neo-cons, Zionists, their surrogates in the media, and their dupes among the general American public?

The Vietnamese suffered far worse that what Americans did then or as a direct consequence of 9/11. The massacre of My Lai, for example, Agent Orange and many more such atrocities. People like me want to see the USA as a force for good and constructive change in the world, and not be the bully that most of the world now sees it as. Not a country or people that brand every nation and its citizens as terrorists or rogue states that stand up for themselves, who point out America’s double standards and ask that America changes its ways for the good of all humanity, and not continue to give succour, political support, massive financial assistance, and considerable military hardware to genuine dictatorships like Saudi Arabia (where the 9/11 terrorists came from), Egypt, Jordan, Colombia and others that support what the US does, and are far more detrimental to the interests not only of their own people but the rest of the world and can more aptly be described as rogue states, rather than those authentic democracies like Venezuela that have each time in all their elections under their present leaders got a clean bill of health from every reputable electoral monitoring body in the world – including the Carter Foundation.

And America’s attitude to Venezuela, branding it a terrorist entity, is to my mind synonymous of a serial womaniser who thinks he’s God’s gift to women, is repeatedly turned down by a woman who wants to have nothing to do with him, but rather than accept this gracefully, he uses his misguided popularity to paint her as a woman of ill-repute or even worst in his eyes as a LESBIAN! Get the picture America? No one hates you; it’s just that we know you can do better and would like for you to start behaving like the responsible people we hope you will become. And you can start doing so by first getting rid of your obsessive paranoia regarding those who refuse to tell you only what you want to hear, and instead listen to those like the young lad who told the emperor that he was naked and not dressed in all the world’s fineries as the emperor’s sycophants had led him to believe. The truth sometimes hurt, but it’s the only positive way forward. This is what Barack Obama represents, not John McCain or Hillary Clinton or those surrounding the outgoing Bush administration.

I’m an academic with wide experience of world affairs; I’m also an award-winning journalist and I know that the US offered Iran the chance to have nuclear weapons when it installed the Shah as their puppet leader in Iran, having deposed the legitimate, democratically elected government of that country. Now it wants Iran, surrounded by nuclear states, to be the only one not to have them, simply because the rulers who are there now and their predecessors had the audacity and sheer temerity to get rid of the hated US proxies who were arbitrarily installed to govern them, making it quite obvious to the US and the rest of the world, and understandably so, that they don't want a return to those bad old days. Where is the moral compass here in the US’s attitudes now as compared to then?

I cannot for the life of me understand why everyone in the US is so obsessed with his or her president being the Commander-in-Chief. Why not see him or her instead as the CEO - someone building a prosperous future for the US and the rest of the world, rather than some medieval monarch going constantly to war. Grow up America and get real. This is the 21st century. And I would suggest that all those who criticise Barack Obama for not wearing a Stars and Stripes pin read William Shakespeare’s KING LEAR. There is a beautiful and apt quotation there from Lear’s rejected daughter, who would later be his saviour: “I love you no more and no less than a daughter should love her father,” she tells him, refusing to bow to his arrogance and the lying of her sisters. The other two daughters had professed undying love, yet they were quick to get rid of their father once he’s ceded power and wealth to them.

And to be honest, I’d rather trust Barack Obama’s patriotism any day than that of the likes of Cheney, Bush, Liebermann, Rush Limbaugh, the Clintons and their ilk. That's why it doesn't surprise me to see John McCain flip-flopping rather dishonestly on his policy towards Hamas. The man is a blatant hypocrite; so are many of the Ashkenazi Jews who see nothing wrong in moving the goal posts regularly to suit their own financial greed. Shame on you!. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. My maternal grandmother is a Falasha Jew - the oldest Jewish sect on planet Earth. But she would be a third class citizen in Ashkenazi dominated Israel. Neither the Falasha nor the Sephardim Jews ended up in Europe's gas chambers or concentration camps. The reason is simple. Hitler and his Nazis only wanted to wipe out their white kith and kin - the Ashkenazi Jews, who are European and Caucasian; not Semites as they fraudulently tell the world they are. Ironically, the Palestinian Arabs, Sephardim and Falasha Jews (origin Ethiopia) are not only blood relatives, but also significant to this somewhat deceptive narrative of anti-Semitism bandied about in the west in respect of the non-Semitic Ashkenazi Jews are actually genuine Semites, as are many of the Arab people. Yet to nail the enduring lie of the Nazis wanting to eradicate all Jews in the world, Field Marshall Rommel had his wartime headquarters in Tunis, Tunisia and the Germans had battalions all over the Middle East and the Horn of Africa where millions of non-European Jews lived and still do; but as I said before, only Ashkenazi Jews from mainland Europe were subjected to this European genocide. Think on that and the lie that is being regurgitated and has been for the past 63 years.

For what I see from an objective perspective vis-à-vis Israel and the extraordinary and uncritical status accorded to Ashkenazi Jews in the west is a symbiotic synthesis of a deep-rooted conscious and subliminal guilt complex on the one hand happily meshed with an unwavering and unquenchable desire on the other to exploit the former’s sins for all they’re worth, and for however long that particular agenda is achievable.

Finally, George W. Bush spouting off in Israel as he did about wartime appeasement to the Nazis – lets not forget that Britain stood alone with its largely black Empire for several years against Nazi Germany when most of America, particularly the Bush clan, were very much pro-Germany and like many influential and not so influential Americans were very anti-Jewish immigration to the US (strike a bell with the current antipathy towards Latino immigration?) - is like a serial and recidivist paedophile telling one how they should properly raise their children.

Thank you for hearing me out.

Professor Dr. Stanley Collymore
London, England.

Findalis said...

Considering that Bush was talking about Dhimmi Carter, it seems to me that Obama has a guilty conscience.

And Bush hit the spot right on! Score one for Bush!

Findalis said...

"The Vietnamese suffered far worse that what Americans did then or as a direct consequence of 9/11."

Shall I tell you of the horrors of Dresden? Or Coventry? London? Tokyo? Please spare me your bleeding heart. In war civilians will be hurt. It is the nature of war since the beginning of the human race.

"The massacre of My Lai, for example"

How about Shanghai? The Japanese did that one. Or Babi Yar. That was a nice piece of work the Nazis did. Are the Americans the only nation on Earth that commit such acts? No. But the way you post, we are.

I too served, the United States Air Force. No I wasn't a fighter pilot, just an NCO doing a job. But I do know one thing. I know that John McCain is a hero to the men he spent time with at the "Hanoi Hilton". Everyone of his fellow prisoners have spoken of his courage, his strength of character. Not one has said anything against him. And from what they told me, it does make him a hero. Maybe you should look up the word. Heroes are not just made on the battlefield, they are and have been made in the POW camps, Concentration Camps and in the civilian world.

What Bush's grandfather did was wrong, but you blame the grandchild for the mistakes and crimes of the grandparent. That would be like blaming every German child alive today for the crimes of the Holocaust. Children and Grandchildren are NOT responsible for the actions of their grandparents, no matter how hideous those actions are.

Obama is a lousy choice for President. He is at best naive, at worst a racist and anti-Semite. Nobody who sits in THAT church for 20 years, has THAT pastor as his mentor can claim they didn't know what the church's or pastor's views were. Obama wasn't sitting in the back pews, he was out front. His church membership wasn't for political gain, he actually believes the tenets of the Trinity Church of Christ.

The last time the US had a naive President was in the late 1970's (a time I am very familiar with as I was stationed in the White House at the time). Jimmy Carter was so naive that he dropped the Shah of Iran in favor of Khomeini. A move that he applauded himself as a good one. Which also brought on a crises of 444 days in which the US Embassy was seized (in violation of International Law) and its staff was taken hostage.

And one of those nice students who took over the US Embassy is now the President of Iran. How nice. Jimmy Carter must be really proud of his accomplishments.