Skip to comments.Teresa Heinz Kerry: The Outrageous Silence of George W. Bush
Posted on 12/22/2005 2:44:54 AM PST by F14 Pilot
In calling the Holocaust "a myth," as he did last week, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has drunk from the bloody cup shared by the malevolent enemies of equality and justice, the ultra right-wingers and haters who live in history's shadows.
Need it be said, again? The gas chambers, the bureaucratic system of murder, the efforts to sever an entire people from their place in this world, did happen, did exist and remains a unifying cause for those who choose justice, now and forever more.
This latest outburst gives the Bush administration a second opportunity to send a strong message in support of Israel and of the global community, and to make a clear statement against bigotry and hatred. This time, President Bush should not let the moment pass as he did after Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" in an October 28 hate-filled speech.
Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust and his denigration of an important ally and close friend of America was an outrage. But so, too, was the tepid American response.
The Bush administration which so often answers challenges with confrontational language took this occasion to whisper. With the exception of America's ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, who denounced the remarks as "pernicious and unacceptable," the Bush administration explained those comments as if they had been uttered by a crazy relative and then returned to its talking points on Iran's nuclear weapons program.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice noted widespread condemnation of the remarks, but did not offer condemnation of her own: "When the president of one country says that another country should be wiped off the face of the map in violation of all of the norms of the United Nations... it has to be taken seriously.... There has been widespread condemnation of this statement and it only demonstrates why we're working so hard to keep Iran from getting technologies that would lead to a nuclear weapon."
The State Department's spokesman, Sean McCormack, anemically noted that Ahmadinejad's statement "reconfirms what we have been saying... and I think it underscores our concern as well as the international community's concern about Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons."
President Bush's press secretary, Scott McClellan, told reporters matter-of-factly that, "Many leaders in the international community have spoken out about the comments that were made."
But Bush was not among them. Not a single word of disapproval passed the president's lips.
The lesson of the last century and more is clear: Acts of hatred often follow words of hatred, and the best way to head off hideous deeds is to respond swiftly and with certainty. Instead of explaining away Iran's behavior, or scoring minor tactical points, it is time to let the antisemites know that Americans will not tolerate their calls for violence or especially grievous insults to history.
Let me explain my outrage. I grew up under a dictatorship, in Mozambique. Grown-ups could not speak out against the repression and injustice that surrounded us. But since leaving, I have demonstrated and marched against tyranny and hate.
I began my formal work against antisemitism in 1977, when I joined the Congressional Wives for Soviet Jewry, a group I would later co-chair. It was an honor to meet and stand with Refuseniks like Ida Nudel, Judith Rattner, Vladimir Slepak, Natan Sharansky and so many others. I visited Russia many times, and met with people who had been systematically and sometimes brutally repressed. I learned from them that when we say "never again," we have to mean it.
Jonathan Sacks, the chief rabbi of Great Britain, has compared antisemitism to a virus, surviving through millennia by mutating: religious anti-Judaism into racial antisemitism, and now antisemitism morphing into anti-Zionism. Whatever the rationalization its adherents hide behind, though, antisemitism has always had at its heart the same things: bigotry and hate and fear.
The only way to prevent the virus from surviving and spreading is to attack, killing it with the strongest possible condemnations before it has a chance to mutate and spread. In October, Bush missed a chance to do that. Now he has a second chance to speak out. I hope he will take it.
It is time for Iran to be confronted by a unified, outraged and outspoken Bush administration, an administration that feels and dispenses the cleansing heat that such virulent words deserve.
Teresa Heinz Kerry is the wife of Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts
That is funny!
I think that druggie TeRAYza had one too many gin soaked raisins...either that or she is leaving the raisin part out of her recipe.
Cleanse your system, you lush.
Maybe this is Elton John's new digs.
I wish Bush would speak out loud and clear about this. He does too much ignoring about big issues.
That must be the Hillary model.
Teresa Heinz Kerry, stupidity and smugness all in a nice drunken package.
A Kerry regime would have been so much tougher.
Yes the draft article looks GOOD!
polish it up as I noted in the resume
paragraph and put it on my
desk and I'll sign it.
Two thoughts. The President is contemplating something far more effective than cleansing words to deal with the Iranians. And secondly, this article illustrates perfectly the left's MO. If you denounce it loudly and righteously then you've fixed the problem. No need to take any real action.
Teh-RAAAAAAY-ZAH Heinz Kennedy - didn't she play the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz??
(The one who only wanted a brain??)
despite people wanting bush to fulminate on this issue, he is doing exactly the right thing. let the euros and the drunk teresa mouth off. none of it will do any good. you are correct however, by mouthing off such platitudes, chair of soviet jewry indeed, lol, the left thinks it has solved this problem. teresa was in russia under a vodka induced haze, nothing more and nothing less. i have also wondered and asked, but no answer has ever been forthcoming, as to how teresa family did so well in mozambique? could it be that being white, her family abused blacks in order to live high on the hog? did teresa partake in this abuse of native blacks? i wonder?
What exactly does "confront" mean? If it means using harsh language, so what? Like the Iranians will care. This strategy is so transparent it's laughable: the dems pick an international crisis that they think the Bush Administration isn't "doing enough" about (e.g., North Korea, Global Warming, Iran, etc). Then they spew out these "brave" editiorials that make it sound like they would be so much more hawkish (and therefore effective) on that issue, if ONLY they had the reigns of power. Is there anyone other than the village idiot (e.g., moderate) who believes this? The dems all know this is code to get the moderates believing their hawks.
Funny thing is, when they are in power, the dems do more to enable the enemy than to stop him. I always get a kick when Madame Allbright gives and interview and proclaims how well the Clinton policy on NK was working--before Bush came to office and allowed them to develop nukes. It's right out the Joseph Gobbel's playbook: repeat the big lie enough times and people will start to believe it.
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.