The Hypocrisy of President Bush (Vanity)

Self ^ | April 9, 2002 | Self

[Edward Watson]

It pains me to see President Bush acting like a hypocrite. All Israel is doing is following his advice in the war against terrorism. If suicide bombings, drive-by shootings and mortal and missile attacks against civilian populations aren't terrorism, what in the world is?

Why is it ok for the US to go half-way around the world, bomb the hell out of the Afghans, kill thousands of terrorists AND innocent civilians and STILL occupy Afghanistan six months later; but it's not ok for Israel to go in its back yard, kill several hundred terrorists and a few dozen innocent civilians and occupy the land for a few weeks????

Isn't this the height of hypocrisy?

Here's the United States, placing multi-million dollar bounties on Mullar Omar and Osama bin Laden's heads and repeatedly trying to get them, DEAD or alive; but at the same time demand Israel not harm a hair on a similar terrorist criminal's (Yasser Arafat) head???

In case anyone's forgotten, Israel seems to be the only nation not allowed to defend itself. It's 400+ dead are comparable to over 20,000 American lives due to a Jewish population 50 times smaller than the total US population. Frankly, Israel has a greater right to destroy the Palestinian terrorists than the United States has of destroying the Al Queda terrorists.

Why is President Bush appeasing the Arabs? Does he need another Sept 11 before waking up from this fantasy that Islamist Arabs are our friends? What are the excuses for his demands on Israel? The "Arab Street" will explode; a new Arab-Israeli war will break out; our 'friendly' Arab allies are going to be overthrown; we won't be able to overthrow Saddam.

Each of these threats are merely paper tigers. There's no real teeth to them.

We've seen the same so-called "Arab Street" during the beginning of the war in Afghanistan. They riot for a few days and then go home and watch their favorite Steven Seagal movie while drinking Coke and eating Pizza Hut.

No Arab country is stupid enough to risk war with Israel. They remember the routs of the past and Israel's military is so much stronger and better these days while theirs are weaker.

As for the overthrowing of our "Friendly Arab Allies"; this is perhaps the biggest piece of horse manure. Our so-called allies, primarily, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, are responsible for producing the largest number of Islamic terrorists in the world. The Saudis build Islamic schools and mosques all over the world, where hatred against America and Israel are taught. The Saudi-financed schools and mosques are the primary source of religious intolerance in the world and have distorted the minds of millions of Muslim men, making them susceptible to recruitment as terrorists. Saudi Arabia is also one of the most anti-Christian nations in the world. One can be flogged for merely having a cross on one's necklace. One can't even bring a Bible or have non-Islamic religious services in the privacy of one's home. Any Muslim who converts to Christianity is beheaded. Finally, 16 of the 19 Sept 11 hijackers were Saudis. Egypt is a cesspool of misery, hatred and corruption. Its media is probably the world's premiere source of anti-Semitism. Kuwaitis are ingrates, who would sooner spit in the eyes of visiting Americans than thank them for giving them back their country a mere decade ago. With friends like these; who needs enemies? Why not let these regimes be overthrown? Perhaps democracy and freedom will get a chance to flourish. After all, what could other Islamist radicals say or do against us that can exceed the propaganda and actions of our current "friendly Arab allies"?

The claim that the US needs Arab allies for any assault against Saddam is absurd. There are already vast areas within Iraq itself that are under US control. Even if there weren't, the US has numerous aircraft carriers from which to launch airstrikes. The US can easily conduct amphibious or paratroop landings on Iraq. Did the Allies in WWII need allies in continental Europe before attempting D-Day in Normandy? Did the US need allies on location before General MacAuthur landed in Leyte?

If the war on terrorism has taught us anything, it has taught us the Islamist Arabs are masters of propaganda and rhetoric. The US should just "Do what is right, let the consequences follow, battle for freedom in spirit and might!"

[ecomcon]

Damn the torpedo's bump.

[bloodmeridian]

Incoming!

[Clemenza]

Israel accepts a sh-tload of Federal Aid, Israel must therefore tailor its policy to that of the USA (something that should always be kept in mind by the "voucher" movement). Federal aid ALWAYS comes with strings attached.

Now the US Governement wants Israel to show restraint, as it needs much of the surrounding region to launch an invasion of Iraq. You can agree or disagree, but this is why it needs to appear "impartial."

[areafiftyone]

kill thousands of terrorists AND innocent civilians

Thousands of innocent civilians? Since when? Have you been reading the Euroweenie peacenik papers?

[Leclair10]

edward i think bush worries this is gonna be Israels vietnam its great to get the terrorists and all and they certainly deserve that right but as you've seen in recent days with Lebanon,Syria, and Sudan Israel is going to have to go to war with just about the rest of the middle east. Bush just wants the region calm to the point where he can get Saddam. Besides if Bush was so worried about appeasing the Arabs wouldn't he have asked for Arafats release so he can negotiate by now? Why is Colon Powell not going directly to Israel? Let it play itself out.

[Sabertooth]

The claim that the US needs Arab allies for any assault against Saddam is absurd.

It's also just one more part of the obvious deception.

We don't need Arab allies, but we also don't need hostile Arab distractions when we go against Iraq and the WMDs.

Between the lines, hasn't it occurred to you that Sharon's strategy and Bush's are the same? All they're publicly "disagreeing" on is the timetable for Israeli withdrawal. Sharon is a warrior, and hardly soft on Palestinians, so why do you suppose that is? Why do you suppose Sharon and Bush "tolerate" the suicide bomb-murderers?

Because of the threat of WMD-tipped SCUDS from Saddam.

Israel is in a dilemma similar to Churchill's in WWII, when he possessed the Nazi Enigma Codes...

Does he save a few now, and risk the greater carnage from Hitler Saddam?

That the answer is "yes" should tell you something about the Iraqi threat we all face.

[RealistOne]

It pains me to see President Bush acting like a hypocrite. All Israel is doing is following his advice in the war against terrorism. There is no analogy between what President Bush is doing and what Israel is doing. The hijackers were not fighting for independence from USA.

[w_over_w]

"Why is it ok for the US to go half-way around the world, bomb the hell out of the Afghans, kill thousands of terrorists AND innocent civilians and STILL occupy Afghanistan six months later; but it's not ok for Israel to go in its back yard, kill several hundred terrorists and a few dozen innocent civilians and occupy the land for a few weeks????"

I don't like the answer to this question any more than you do but IMHO the answer is . . . OIL AND WORLD ECONOMIES TIED TO OIL.

In short, all disruptions in the middle-east are evaluated as to their impact on world economies. Remember when Libya invaded Chad? Neither do I! That's because it had no impact on anyone's economy.

Israel can defend itself and root out terrorism right up to the point that it jeopardizes our economy. I have no problem being WRONG here; I just can't find any other answer. Is there?

[CA Conservative]

Welcome to the real world of international diplomacy. If you want to project a black and white, good vs. evil view on the rest of the world, then you are always going to be disappointed by our foreign policy.

If your view is that we should never deal with people who do terrible things, then we should never have worked with the Soviets in WW II to defeat Hitler; Stalin was arguably a bigger murderer and despot than Hitler ever was.

I am an ardent supporter of Israel, but President Bush's job is to try to advance the interests of the United States first. Right now, he sees the primary focus of that responsibility to be destroying the infrastructure of terrorism around the world, and Saddam Hussein is next on his list.

Does anyone really believe it is by coincidence that Saddam chose now to increase his payments to the families of suicide bombers? He knows that as long as things are in such an uproar in Israel, the other Arab leaders will not support an attack on him. Bush has walked very carefully here with Israel, giving them time to finish the major thrust of their offensive, but in order to get support from the other Arab nations for our fight against Saddam, Bush has to demonstrate that he has some control over Israel. That is why he got frustrated when there was NO signs from the Israelis of pulling back.

As much as we might all like the idea of packing up all of the Palesitnians and shipping them to Egypt or Jordan, it is not going to happen. It is called realpolitick, meaning we have to deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it was.

[gunshy]

All GWB has to do is pull all of our military out of every country we are currently based in the mideast. Let the arab states deal with Iraq ala Kuwait.

When they have been damaged enough, they will be only too happy to let us take out Iraq. In the meantime, let Israel take care of their own business.

[Edward Watson]

So, 'Do as I say, not as I do AND disregard my call to arms against terrorism AND disregard my demand of if you're not with us, you're with the terrorits AND those that harbor terrorists will be treated as being terrorists themselves ... because I give you money'?

[Clemenza]

So, 'Do as I say, not as I do AND disregard my call to arms against terrorism AND disregard my demand of if you're not with us, you're with the terrorits AND those that harbor terrorists will be treated as being terrorists themselves ... because I give you money'?

Our government at work. 'Nuff said.

[WhiteGuy]

answer is . . . OIL

Bingo....

Although the way I see it....

This is all about controlling the oil production worldwide.

And those who wind up in control, will rule the world

at our expense.

[borkrules]

You may be right, but doesn't it make you sick to your stomach that once again, Jews are just gonna have to bury their dead and take it up the wazoo so we can do what we want in the Middle East? Honestly, I don't know why Israel tolerates this state of affairs, other than it's dependence on American aid. We wouldn't stand for this for one second if the roles were reversed.

[Clemenza]

It's a sad situation, for sure.

[isthisnickcool]

Typical "W" poker game. No cards have been shown yet.

[Edward Watson]

Welcome to the real world of international diplomacy. If you want to project a black and white, good vs. evil view on the rest of the world, then you are always going to be disappointed by our foreign policy.

Wasn't it President Bush himself who described the current crisis as a war against "Evil"?

If your view is that we should never deal with people who do terrible things, then we should never have worked with the Soviets in WW II to defeat Hitler; Stalin was arguably a bigger murderer and despot than Hitler ever was.

But this isn't my point.

I am an ardent supporter of Israel, but President Bush's job is to try to advance the interests of the United States first. Right now, he sees the primary focus of that responsibility to be destroying the infrastructure of terrorism around the world, and Saddam Hussein is next on his list.

How can President Bush "advance the interests of the United States" when he is showing the world, especially, the Arab world that hates us, that he is not merely willing to stab his only dependable friend in the back to appease the Arabs, he is incapable of being consistent in his statements? How can he expect the world to take him seriously and that he means what he says? Who said it, "Walk softly and carry a big stick?" As Afghanistan proved, the Islamist Arabs only respect one thing - determined power. Whatever happened to the worldwide jihad that was promised by the pundits if the US ever invaded Afghanistan or bombed during Ramadan? Even I was fooled. I forgot that no matter how much Islamist Arabs hate and despise us, they refuse to side with those who are clearly LOSERS. As long as there's a chance of an Islamic group eventually emerging triumphant, they'll support them, but the moment that group's fate is sealed, they trip over themselves in distancing from them.

Does anyone really believe it is by coincidence that Saddam chose now to increase his payments to the families of suicide bombers? He knows that as long as things are in such an uproar in Israel, the other Arab leaders will not support an attack on him.

Of course. However, the moment the Palestinian terrorists are thoroughly crushed, no Islamic Arab, notwithstanding Saddam, will lift a finger to help them.

Bush has walked very carefully here with Israel, giving them time to finish the major thrust of their offensive, but in order to get support from the other Arab nations for our fight against Saddam, Bush has to demonstrate that he has some control over Israel. That is why he got frustrated when there was NO signs from the Israelis of pulling back.

Let's modify the old WWII saying shall we? "The Americans will fight to the very last [Israeli Jew] - "Canadian" in the original." If President Bush expects to succeed in the war against terrorism, he'd better let Israel do what it has to do to defend its people.

As much as we might all like the idea of packing up all of the Palesitnians and shipping them to Egypt or Jordan, it is not going to happen. It is called realpolitick, meaning we have to deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it was.

I've often wondered at the taboo of mass expulsion of the Palestinians. Why? No one lifted a finger to prevent the mass expulsion of French Algerians. No one prevented the millions of Germans from being expelled from Poland. Did anyone help the Serbs who were expelled from Kosovo and Bosnia? Did anyone other than the Israelis help the 600,000 Jews who were expelled from the Arab states after the 1948 war? Who's currently helping the white Zimbabweans and Christian Sudanese and Nigerians who are being expelled from their homes? Why then deny the fact "No Arab=no terrorism"?

[RAT Patrol]

Bush is a big disappointment. He's so darn evasive it is hard to tell where he stands. He is as good if not better at double speak than Clinton was. He is messing up on the Israeli/Palestinian issue, he is pro-gay, he signed CFR, wrong on immigration and foreign aid, yada yada. I like him less and less each day.

[AUgrad]

I don't like the answer to this question any more than you do but IMHO the answer is . . . OIL AND WORLD ECONOMIES TIED TO OIL.

In short, all disruptions in the middle-east are evaluated as to their impact on world economies. Remember when Libya invaded Chad? Neither do I! That's because it had no impact on anyone's economy.

Israel can defend itself and root out terrorism right up to the point that it jeopardizes our economy. I have no problem being WRONG here; I just can't find any other answer. Is there?

IMO you are exactly right. Our economy can probably withstand the Israeli/PA conflict.Considering that Iraq is an oil producing state, the combination of that fiasco and the removal of Hussein would probably create enough tension in the world oil markets to affect our economy. Thus, GWB would like to see the conflict end so he can pursue his own agenda. It doesn't seem to bother him that his policies are baldly hypocritical.