Even as Al Sharpton was being served subpoenas by Federal investigators, the leading Democratic Party Presidential candidates spared no time in courting him. Sharpton has had lunch with Obama and a planned meeting with Bill Clinton and is still indicating that his endorsement is up for grabs. If Sharpton's presence on stage at the 2004 Democratic Party convention or the statement by the head of the New York State Democratic Party during the 2000 election that anyone who had a problem with Sharpton has no place in the Democratic party, his courtship by the two top Democratic party candidates for the Presidency is eloquent testimony of the relationship between the Democratic Party and Jews.Despite leading racist attacks against Jews that led to several murders, Al Sharpton has only become more powerful within the Democratic party. Despite being caught on video tape discussing a drug deal, despite a history of lies, blackmail and racial intimidation, the Democratic Party has chosen to mainstream a known racist and hatemonger. The same media that jumped over any Conservative Christian criticizing Romney's religion, gave Sharpton a free pass. After all Al Sharpton brought mobs to Crown Heights that stoned and beat a Jewish community in a replay of Kristalnacht, what is a little bigotry circa 2004 between media friends?
Al Shaprton's presence in the Presidential race is a powerful reminder that the Democratic Party and Liberalism had sold out Jews even before Israel was on the table. But then again this was the party of FDR who was happy to have Jewish support for his domestic agenda and was equally happy to watch six millions Jews die abroad, his administration even going so far as to work to keep Jewish refugees not only out of American territory, but out of any adjoining territories. Nothing has changed today when it comes to the millions of Jews who survived the Holocaust and who along with their children and grandchildren live in Israel.
Jewish support for the Democratic Party was rooted in the habituation of arriving immigrants by Tammany Hall party bosses and is rooted today in the voting habits of the secular liberal Northeast suburban upper to upper middle class population to which they belong. There is no Jewish vote, there is a pattern of Jewish voting and that pattern has little to do with Israel or Jewish issues.
Beginning in the 60's the Jewish population split between an upper to upper middle class that moved on to the suburbs and to expensive urban neighborhoods in a paroxysm of white flight and a working class and often religious Jewish population that remained behind. Call it High Jewish and Low Jewish. The High Jewish population is determinedly assimilationist boasting the highest rate of intermarriage, the greatest knee jerk liberalism and is often uncomfortable with or outrightly hostile to the Low Jewish populations in the same way that German-American Jews reacted to the wave of incoming Russian-Jewish immigrants at the turn of the century. The High Jewish population is more likely to vote against Israel and Jewish issues, most likely to oppose everything from school vouchers to a the War on Terror.
The Low Jewish population, often Orthodox Jewish and immigrant Russian, left behind in the abandoned inner cities is most likely to be conservative and vote Republican, within the political realities of New York City in which Republican candidates rarely even bother to show up. It is this population that suffered from the depredations of Al Sharpton while the High Jewish populations continued embracing Al Sharpton and argued furiously that using the word "Pogrom" to describe the Crown Heights Pogrom was wrong. But in the end it was the Low Jewish population that voted Dinkins out of office and voted Giuliani in. It is the Low Jewish population that has supported Bush and the High Jewish population that supported Kerry and now Obama and Hillary.
These make up the bulk of the NJDC and the various liberal groups. They also are on the road to extinction. Between low birth rates and high intermarriage rates, the same people who have backed every Judeophobic Democratic President from FDR to Truman to Carter to Clinton are wiping themselves out of the equation and the Democratic Party knows it. Between their doglike loyalty to the Party and their own diminishing demographics, the Democratic party is completing a process that began in the 70's when it began casting off its Jewish supporters.
From La Raza to Sharpton to CAIR, the Democratic Party remains a safe home for every bigot. In the process the Democratic Party has become a party of Anti-Semites and self-hating Jews drawn. While the Republican party has plenty of flaws, no person of integrity and no Jew who can call himself by that name can any longer proudly identify himself as a Democrat. The party today stands for Anti-Semitism at home and Anti-Israelism abroad. It is a hollow sham, a nanny state party built on giveaways and fostering a racist dependency, its values are hostile to America and hostile to freedom. It comes with a group mind and that group mind has no place for individuality or success, only for a culture of failure and for group-think.
When the Democratic Party finally nominates its Presidential candidate, whether it be Obama or Hillary, for the first time since Carter it will be a candidate with a history of supporting terrorism and an open contempt for Jews.
Comments
george bush is worse for israel than carter could have ever been,
ReplyDeletegeorge bush has barely done a fraction of what carter intended to do and everything every succeeding president has done is based on what carter did
ReplyDeletehe began the surrender process
The major Democratic candidates are courting the anti-Semitic Al Sharpton because he obviously has a great influence on the black community.
ReplyDeleteWhich proves to me that the black community is at heart largely anti-semitic. Either that or they have a really twisted interpretation on what a Reverend or so-called Man of G-d is supposed to be.
Personally, a think it's a a little from column A and little from Column B. And more than enough evidence for anyone to back away from any candidate or party resorting to such tactics as touting out the anti-Semitic, pogrom intiating "reverend."
(If I seem overly critical of the black community collectively it's because I witnessed first hand what happened to my otherwise crime free and beautifully simple Italian American community. Just a year before I finally moved out I was tormented and threatened. And two black people stood out on their porches and screamed, "The (blacks) and (Hispanics) are going to take over the West Side!"
They did and the community is now beyond repair and ridden with violence and drug activity. And at the same time waves of Somali immigrants are being imported in.
It's a mess.)
The so-called high jews, liberal Jews do not wish to be Jewish at all. It is like light colored negroes who pass for white. These people do the same thing in the hopes of not looking too Jewish or Jewish at all.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if they really are Jews at all or Idumean forced converts.
While agreeing with most of the above, I must object to your say
ReplyDeleteon FDR...
He is the one who overcame the German
inspired anti-semitism that came...well, the "Know Nothing" where
Republican to start with, weren't
they?
http://www.exilestreet.com/Columns/Prelutsky/20071224PrelutskyNation.html
[quote]I’m so grateful that
two sets of Russian Jewish grandparents had the guts to pack up their kids
and caboodle, and move to America.
Unfortunately, they and many others like them included in their baggage
several hundred years worth of religious antagonisms. In far too many
cases, these fears and prejudices, although initially well-founded, have
been passed along like precious heirlooms from one generation to the
next.
Even among some of my friends and relatives, there are those who
half-expect their Christian neighbors to start organizing pogroms any day
now. They remain unconvinced that Hitler and the Nazis were pagans.
And even when I point out that it was American and British soldiers,
mainly Christians, who brought down the Third Reich and liberated the
concentration camps, it often falls on deaf ears.
So, although I do not accept that we are all fallen creatures or that Jesus
Christ died for my sins, I am thankful that I live in a Christian nation. [/quote]
And this goes for the American blacks too.
Any educated guy, whatever color he is, will not go for Sharpton's crap...
the Know Nothings were Anti-Catholic and in the 19th century
ReplyDeleteFDR was an anti-semite and the America Firsters drew from both Republicans and Democrats
Bert Prelutsky is a human maggot and an atheist and proof that a conservative Jew can be just as big a self-hating anti-semite as a liberal jew
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2005/12/self-hating-conservative-jews-eclipse.html
in the section you quoted Prelutsky takes the time to sneer at those who unlike him actually are Jews in spirit, instead of just an accident of genetics, he also repeats the usual secondhand lies
"Even among some of my friends and relatives, there are those who
half-expect their Christian neighbors to start organizing pogroms any day now."
No one expects that, though in crown heights there was indeed an actual pogrom involved Christians. Last I checked Al Sharpton was a christian minister.
"They remain unconvinced that Hitler and the Nazis were pagans."
Probably that would be because the Nazis were Christians. Some of the leadership flirted with pagan rituals, but Germany and the Nazis were Christians and without the Christian Democrats they never even would have come to power.
"And even when I point out that it was American and British soldiers,
mainly Christians, who brought down the Third Reich and liberated the
concentration camps, it often falls on deaf ears."
And it was Christians who ran the concentration camps and the American and British soldiers did not fight the war in order to liberate the camps and once the camps were liberated, those liberated were put into DP camps and those nice British soldiers did their best to keep them out of Israel with truncheon and bullet
No educated guy should go for Sharpton's crap or Prelutsky's crap
Wabano you actually think your grandparents and parents fears of the Russians etc were overboard?
ReplyDeleteAre you in the real world?
Jews were hounded and murdered by the masses in those nations. This is not overboard to feel that way.
They were persecuted, tortured and killed by the 100s of thousands and you feel they were overboard in their feelings?
How dead is your heart??
It is troubling when people identify with evil and persecutors. Very troubling.
ReplyDeleteIt is even more troubling when they are ready to forgive what was not done to "them" but to others.
Hi Sultan passing through , enjoyed the post
ReplyDeleteThis nazi as pagan stuff is pure spin.
The pope called Hitler a true son of the Church in fact and most of them were card carrying Catholics.
The pagan spin was fostered later on to save the churches reputation but Hitler said he was called by christ to do what he did and avenge the blood of Christ on Jews.
A real weirdo to say the least.
The church backed that.
Yes, some catholics did not go along of course, but the Nazis were not pagan. They were christians.
I know I am an old man, I remember those times.
Two Italians in a row. The blog is picking up Sultan. I approve.
ReplyDeleteWhats your take on the election who do you think takes the candidacy for Republicans?
certainly the vast majority of Nazi party members were church going men and women, there is no serious argument to be made otherwise
ReplyDeletethe SS had its own confessors for goodness sake
this doesn't mean that Christianity is the same thing as Nazism, some Christians were Nazis does not make all Christians Nazis
but the historical revisionism that insists the nazis were pagans or atheists simply doesn't work, the majority of the nazi party was christian and so was its base and its appeal,
nazism perverted conservatism in the same way that communism perverted liberalism
the election is up in the air, i expect it will come down between romney, thompson and giuliani as the front runners, maybe huckabee if he doesn't implode
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't say bush has barely done a fraction of what carter did. Not when bush has given over 2 billion to the arabs knowing full well it would be used to kill Jews.
ReplyDeletealso, pre-bush political days he was determined to remove every Jew from Israel and i've seen the newspaper clippings that prove it.
i vote for bush being the worst of the filthy lot.
i also see bush as the worst of the anti-semites. It's one thing for one of them to be outspoken about it, but bush is the most devious because of his subtle deceitful approach.
carter was the first president to legitimize the plo
ReplyDeletenothing bush sr, clinton, bush jr did would have been possible without that
Just read your interesting piece, but: what do you mean by 'the millions of Jews who survived the Holocaust and who along with their children and grandchildren live in Israel'? Someone must have misinformed the writer, at least on this item...
ReplyDeleteI mean that millions of Jews in Europe and Russia survived the Holocaust that killed 6 millions Jews and millions of Jews today live in Israel
ReplyDeletewhat's the confusion about?
Dear Sultan Knish,
ReplyDeleteI am a thirty six year registered Republican. FDR I believe was an anti-Semite. I believe you are incorrect about American First Committee however. What authors and historians are you reading or can you cite?
Seems tom me from my reading, folks like Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh, Charles Coughlin, etc., attached themselves to the conservative, anti-Roosevelt movement as well as the Republican party. Many Republican Congressmen were sympathetic to the anti-war, isolationist movemnt. Do you have any information that would prove otherwise?
Today, many conservatives are sympathetic to the Ron Pauls and the Pat Buchanans, much to my chagrin.
I do not believe Democrats or Democrat Congressmen were well-represented in this isolationist, anti-war movement. Were American Jews then? I do not believe to any great extent American Jews were of the isolationist bent. This was predominantly a movement that found a home in the GOP and on the political right. We conservatives need to be honest then and now.
George W. Bush has proven himself quite the foe of consevatives like myself and quite the foe of the right in Israel. He is no conservative in my opinion (nor is he a friend of Israel) yet conservative leaders and activists circle the wagons around him.
america first was a mixed bag, some were not anti-semitic but suspicious of another democratic president leading the country to war, initially they tried to keep the bundits and that crowd out
ReplyDeletesome were isolationist and their behavior verged on the problematic, particularly when they began a campaign against any hollywood movie that showed Nazi Germany unfavorably
but the organization steadily became taken over by a more pro-nazi crowd culminating in the rise of Charles Lindbergh as the spokesman for the anti-war movement and by then it had become a disgrace and bundits were openly involved, kind of like how the ACLU tried to keep the Communists out and then got taken over by them
coughlin was actually a socialist, a more rabid socialist than FDR actually, that was why he turned on FDR after supporting him
ford was a crackpot willing to jump on any conspiracy theory, he was involved in anti-war activities around WW1 and decided that the jews were to blame for everything
lindbergh was just plain pro-nazi, the way some were
AF did have a few jews, one in a prominent role, though to what extent this was a front is debatable
ron paul is basically henry ford, down to the shameful ignorance, the vague ramblings and the crackpot economic theories and has the same appeal too
addendum, democrats were more likely to be involved with the original lefty anti-war front groups which began collapsing once their soviet masters got invaded and the hitler-stalin pact got shot to pieces
ReplyDeleteAF though had no play in the south, which itself suggests something
*bundists
ReplyDeleteSultan,
ReplyDeleteI think the point is, any political movement must be wary of these parasites that attach themselves to the trunk of an otherwise healthy tree. I
I was an activist in our local Republican party; eight years. I found quite a few of these Pat Buchanan / Ron Paul ("America First" / isolationist) enthusiasts in the GOP. This is a dangerous trend in the GOP as are the Sharptons and the Jacksons (not to mention vicious anti-Semites like Mr. Carter) on the left.
Suffice it to say, under George W. Bush, the GOP has moved decidedly against the Jewish State. Look at the 1992 Republican party platform in comparison to the Bush / Rove language muscled into our 2004 national party platform calling for the establishment of a PLO terror state in Israel and the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Gaza and northern Samaria. There was one conservative Christian -- from Texas on the National Platform Writing Committtee -- that protested against the betrayal. Her motion to delete the immoral, anti-Semitic, pro-jihadist language was brushed aside by the full Committee, August 2004, New York.
In 1992 our national platform read, "We oppose the creation of an independent Palestinian state. Nor will we support the creation of any political entity that would jeopardize Israel's security."
And now:
"We support President Bush’s vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side......
"Republicans agree with President Bush that Israel’s plan to remove all settlements from Gaza and several settlements from the West Bank is a courageous step toward peace in the face of continuing terrorist violence. This initiative can stimulate progress toward peace as laid out in the Road Map launched by President Bush.
"Republicans commend the government of Israel for its desire to pursue peace, even in the face of continuing terrorist attacks..."
What has the Party of Lincoln come to under Bush?
well bush is in many ways a liberal but again the state department has taken control of this administration in collusion with saudi arabia following the same old party line, that resolving palestinian arab issues will solve most of america's problems in the middle east
ReplyDeletethe party of lincoln has undergone several transformations and fought pitched battles for its soul, considering the Teddy Roosevelt vs Taft bloody showdown that left the Democrats in power and gave us WW1
right now the party has an uncertain future, the paleocons are looking around for something different and they found it in Ron Paul
the Republicans are not standing up for American workers but are instead pushing global business, open borders and illegal immigration so why should Reagan democrats back them?
I'm not sure I agree that the State Department has taken control of this administration. Even if it has, it is because Mr. Bush in not a leader. State Department should toe the line on administration (the president's) policies in the Middle East as should the U.S. Secretary of State. Otherwise, under a good leader, heads would roll. Heads have rolled under Bush's watch. I believe former Treasury Secretary O'Neil was one. See "The Price of Loyalty."
ReplyDeleteGeorge W. Bush and Dr. Rice may have more in common than you and others might care to admit. Dr. Rice is also a liberal and a globalist, I believe former board member, Standard Oil Company.
George W. Bush, his father, James Baker III and others, I am sure you know, have fairly extensive financial connections with our Saudi jihadist enemies; the Carlyle Group, G. W.'s Harken Energy sale, BCCI, Khalid bin Mahfouz, etc. This has not gone unnoticed by some (but a few) reporters, Middle East analysts, former CIA operatives (like Robert Baer), etc. Consequently, U.S. policy under Bush is decidedly pro-Saudi Arabia / Wahhabi --- anti-Israel.
I'm sure you know, "resolving Palestinian Arab issues will solve most of America's problems in the Middle East," is close family friend, James Baker's line of thinking, as well as Dr. Rice's thinking; let us not forget Dr. Rice's comparisons of Palestinian Muslims to Blacks in the South during the civil rights movement (a movement she was noticeably absent from) and the Jews to White racists. This is George W.'s Secretary of State, which leads me to wonder about Bush's own personal issues with a people he once implied would go to hell.
Bush talks a good game to his largely pro-Israel Christian base -- "Israel is our friend," "I'm going to stand by Israel" -- but it's all verbiage and meaningless. I watch what he does, more than I listen to what he says; although if you listen carefully, his anti-Israel bias comes out. His Annapolis speech for instance, urging both the Palestinians and the Israelis to end the terrorism; his and Rice's repeated references to Israel's "occupation" and "humiliation" of the Palestinians and things of this nature.
That Bush is not eloquent on extemporaneously on his feet like Reagan for instance, I believe is due to the man's lack of a coherent political philosophy and ideology more than stupidity as some allege. George W. Bush is not a stupid man. Not by a long- shot.
well what happened saw the state department sabotaging the victory over Saddam thus undermining the Pentagon and the war hawks
ReplyDeleteby the time the dust had settled, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc were on the way out and Rice came to dominate the administration
but really Bush Sr was heavily pressuring Israel into negotiations with the PLO, so this is nothing new
under Sharon though, the US was on a war footing and less inclined to play patty cake with the terrorists and Sharon had demonstrated no 'give'
by contrast Olmert is rolling over and playing dead
Saudi Arabia never really left the Bush White House but is really going hog wild these days
It was well-known in Israel, Ehud Olmert was Bush's choice to replace Sharon -- Sharon himself bowed to Bush's immoral will, becoming his maid-servant. This was the prime minister who rightly compared Bush's drive to establish a Palestinian Muslim state to the 1938 Munich agreement.
ReplyDeleteBush did not want any hard-liners like Benjamin Netanyahu (who is really not a hard-liner) but a weak, defeatist - puppet like Mr. Olmert.
To me, this spoke volumes as to Bush's lack of conservative credentials as well as his lack of commitment to defeat the global jihad, of which Israel is central.
Bush, I believe, has done considerable damage to the GOP as well as to this nation. Historians will sort it all out in the years to come. Maybe he is better than the Democrats. That is not saying much.
Steve ,
ReplyDeleteWhen the Sultans have no faith in God to turn to they stick with their political Yugo on blocks in their front yard.
No matter whta you write they will keep the junked useless car.
It just reveals to me thats all he's got for salvation,help ,man's corrupt politic's.
he's on the Titanic headed for a crash and dosen't even know it.
How's the response from Bauer,CUFI ?
I never recieved a response from Nadia.
marcel
xxxxxx
Under the leadership of President Bush and his phony Road Map peace plan the Palestinian's are always portrayed falsely as the victims while tiny outnumbered Israel is always protrayed as the occupier,aggressor ,bad guy.
This conspiracy is global in nature against Israel and the Jews and aims to complete the final solution agenda first attempted by Haman then Adolph Hitler wiuth more success.
Number 3, George Bush is more diabolically clever and devious than any final solution plan to date.
This time haSatan is much more clever and devious and uses a charming,smooth talking,smiling man who speaks of bringing peace to Israel and the Jews.
Only his peace is Yasser Arafat's 'peace of the grave'
Sadly Israel is mesmerized and hyptnotized by this wolf who speaks like a lamb,frozen like a deer in the headlights of a fast oncoming semi.
WAKE UP ISRAEL,HAMAN & HITLER ARE BACK,THIS TIME WITH A SMILE AND PROMISE OF PEACE !
Two unarmed and dead Jews,Thats the way Bush and Olmert like it 'for the peace' !
Maybe if Israel does more for 'the peace' and all Jews move into barbed wire ringed ghettos the Palestinians will stop attacking them ?
Maybe if more land is surrendered and terrorists released from prison the Palestinian terrorist's will stop killing Jews for slaughter whom Olmert refuses to allow to have weapons to defend themselves.
He only supplies weapons to Palestinian terrorists who kill Jews
I wonder if they used weapons supplied to the Palestinian terrroists by president Bush or Puppet Olmert ?
I'll bet you these Palestinian terrorists KILLERS were just released by Quisling Olmert from prison to please his master Herr Bush.
cover up
If these Palestinian murderers were just released from prison and used weapons suplied by the Bush/Omert syndicate of destruction ,they will work hard to cover it up to keep the 'process' moving forwards.
Whats the big deal ,it's only two dead Jews and this is a small part of the painful sacrafice Israel must give to the god of(choose one) peace,no peace,imitation peace,some peace,lite peace,fake peace George
I believe Bush would have pulled off his plan no matter what carter would have done in advance.
ReplyDeleteAs for wabano's comment about his friends, etc expecting pogroms. When I was hanging out on campus at Ohio University, the rabbi at Hillel warned me to keep a low profile to avoid trouble. My response was, "So things haven't changed then?" "No. They haven't."
We're in galus, matey. If a Jew thinks he's completely safe in any country, he's naive and meshugah. We never have been. We never will be. Just give it time and they turn. It's tradition and a consistent one.
Steve, I hadn't heard that about Bush and Olmert, are there any sources for that?
ReplyDeleteyobee, yes unfortunately true
marcel, thanks for stopping by as always. I have faith in G-d. You don't even know G-d.
Faith in G-d does not preclude taking action or doing what can be done physically, if you expect miracles without action you are either a fool or a saint and I rather doubt you are a saint
Sultan,
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you read some of the same sites that I read. J. Post, YNet, Israelinsider, Arutz Sheva, etc.
I cannot remember if it was Caroline Glick or where now. It would be very difficult to find. If you know Caroline, ask her; surely she knows. Little doubt you have some contacts in Israeli political circles. If I am mistaken, I will admit it. I do not believe I am.
It was pretty widely known in Israeli political circles that Bush wanted Olmert to replace Sharon. I can't remember some of the things Bush did to tip his hand. Did he invite Olmert to Washington before the early 2006 elections?
I know he did not interfere as demonstrably as Clinton. Bush was more discrete. U.S. presidents typically favor one party or another in Israel. Usually it is the Labor party. Bush is not a conservative. He would never support someone like Moshe Feiglin. I've not seen Bush demonstrate any warmth toward Netanyahu -- have you? Netanyahu is considered a moderate at best by the right; many believe he is a compromiser; to others he is a sell-out.
One of then Governor Bush's several campaign promises was to not interfere or meddle in Israel's elections like Bill Clinton, yet he also vowed he would move America's ambassador to Israel's capitol, Jerusalem, immediately upon assuming office. He quickly violated that campaign promise, as did Clinton.
I expect liberal Democrats to appease our enemies. I do not expect this from conservative Republicans. Nevertheless, Bush remains popular amongst conservatives. To me, he is a huge disappointment.
Dear Sultan,
ReplyDeleteYou have not commented on Bush family's well-known corrupt and compromised business ties to / with our Saudi enemies. I am guessing you do not wish to discuss this sordid aspect of the Bush administration?
""marcel, thanks for stopping by as always. I have faith in G-d. You don't even know G-d. ""
ReplyDeleteSultan,
I notice you talk about him alot and he is a Republican and killing Israel slowly.
He,it ,the whole corrupt process seems to be front and center and that is called Idolatry in Torah.
I'd say it's time to change god's,don't you because the democrats ,republican's righ,left have treacherously betrayed Israle and the Jewish people ?
Don't lead people on to flase hope but to the only hope.
steve, I thought I had, but that kind of entanglement has been part of American politics for a long while now
ReplyDeleteand saudi money has been entangled with the clinton administration quite a bit
Marcel, your incoherent insults are meaningless, especially coming from an acknowledged idol worshiper
ReplyDeleteMarcel is filled with hatred.
ReplyDeleteIt's not nice.
Sultan, the point is, I am a conservative Republican; not a liberal Democrat. I have come to expect leftists like Clinton to appease our enemies. I do not expect it from Republicans like Bush.
ReplyDeleteWhen Clinton, Peres, Rabin and Arafat promoted the Oslo Accords, I remember arguing with my leftist Jewish neighbor this would be suicidal. He liked and trusted Clinton as much as Republicans like and trust Bush, so he felt the thing would be wonderful. Never the less, I expect this nonsense from a liberal Democrat. Many Democrats believe in the essential goodness of criminals and murderers like Arafat. Conservatives learn the hard lessons of history.
When I began studying this, I was shocked to see the number of Republicans, former Republican party officials -- James Baker, Frank Carlucci, George Herbert Walker Bush, etc. -- involved in this sordid Carlyle Group. Then there was the Bin Laden Group -- Shafiq bin Laden, Osama's brother -- in the Carlyle Group at least till the September 11, 2001 Muslim terror atrocities.
I'm not sure if it was Robert Baer ("Sleeping With the Devil") who wrote the Saudis considered the Clinton years the interregnum years. They were looking forward to the Republicans taking the White House again. This is one of the reasons the Saudis helped young George W. financially. They were looking for an up and coming future president who, like his father, would sympathize with their position on the Arab war against Israel as well Saudi Middle East interests in general.
Bush has managed the situation in Israel wonderfully for the Saudi jihadists. He is the first American president to successfully pressure Israel (Ariel Sharon) to expel Jews from historic Israel; more than any of his predecessors, Bush has begun the process for the establishment a Palestinian terror-killer state dedicated to Israel's destruction. Bush knows this. Anyone with half a brain knows this.
What is Bush going to do in Israel next week other than pressure his poodle prime minister to make more suicidal concessions for his Saudi friends.
J. Post is reporting this morning Olmert is encouraging the Jews to get used the the idea of a divided Jerusalem and a Palestinian state approximating the 1967 (Auschwitz) borders with a few existing "settlements" remaining a part of Israel.
Were Bush to do this to American land, he would be tried and hung for treason! What is this? Why don't conservatives condemn this 21st century Neville Chamberlain.
What Bush has done and is doing to the Jews in Israel is worse than what Chamberlain did to the Czechs at Munich, 1938. Many thousands of Jews could potentially be slaughtered as a result of this betrayal; this effort to appease our jihadist enemies.
Can't you find it in your heart to condemn this evil U.S. president for this? Little doubt, like me, you are also a conservative. How can you stomach this betrayal of moral principle as a conservative?
Wouldn't Lincoln roll over in his grave if he could see what his party has come to?
republicans are somewhat incrementally better, but american presidents have been appeasing the enemy for quite a while now and that includes ronald reagan
ReplyDeleteit's less about believing in their goodness, something that few aside from carter or bush are mushyheaded enough to believe, mostly it's just political calculation
the saudis have been inside the white house since FDR, FDR took counsel on Israel from Ibn Saud
they've been here under every single president, republican or democrats. they have deep business ties through key political districts and academic and political institutions
the saudis were of course closely tied to bush sr, but it didn't stop them from developing ties to clinton and then dealing with bush jr
bush did not pressure sharon to evict jews from gaza, if anything sharon had blunted all the american pressure and that pressure was minimal under him... as it is when an israeli leader says no and means it
sharon had a demographic vision of israel based on the wall of separation, what he did was his own decision and was actually protested as unilateral by many in the administration
the problems come about when israeli leaders like netanyahu or olmert are too weak to say no to america and mean it, or outright step up to the butcher block, e.g. rabin and barak
of course i condemn bush, but i'm a realist... if israel has no leadership, things like this will happen and bush is doing exactly what every president since truman has done, pressure israel to make concessions to the arabs
in 1949 the american ambassador was pressuring israel to pull back from the negev and let the egyptians have it, very little has changed in nearly 60 years
some conservatives do condemn it (I'm not a conservative) but conservatives have limited impact on the bush administration except when there's a mass revolt combined with major public dissatisfaction, e.g. Harriet Miers or the Amnesty
and so far nothing like that has been generated over Israel, sadly
fyi back in the day i supported clinton thinking he would be an improvement over bush sr' relentless pressure on israel, arabist war in the gulf and disastrous do nothing foreign policy in the face of communist china
ReplyDeletethe consequences helped teach me a good deal of cynicism about expecting pro-israel or even sane foreign policies from presidents
so i give bush credit where credit is due and i'm saddened that the state department is running the administration and israel lacks the leadership to stand up for herself
but i don't expect an american president to not pressure israel into concessions to the terrorists, no matter how wrong it is
they've learned that there are only political benefits to pressuring israel so long as you don't bash it in public the way bush sr did
I agree with you assessment that American policy toward Israel has changed little over the decades since Israel became a state, with the exception that at one time a Palestinian state in the Holy Land was unacceptable. It was not publicly enunciated till or by the Clinton Administration. Hillary Clinton caught the Administration off guard, in an untenable position of embarrassment and denial when she floated the prospect.
ReplyDeleteWhat concerns me about this U.S. president, especially post 9/11, are (for lack of a better term) the outright distortions, half truths and lies he tells the American people about the nature of our enemy. In any war the first principle is to define your enemy. Bush has failed miserably in this regard.
1) America's enemy is Islam, plain and simple. This does not mean all Muslims are America's enemy -- there are peaceful Muslims; many Sufi Muslims are peaceable. I would suggest a significant number are indeed enemies.
2)Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Ahmadinejad, etc., are not as Mr. Bush alleges, "traitors to their own faith." These are faithful Muslims, in good standing. That "Islam is peace" is a blatant lie. That arch-terrorist-jihadist / Nazi-sympathizer, financier of the Munich massacres, Holocaust-denier, etc., Mahmoud Abbas is a "man dedicated to peace" is a monstrous lie." That 'Palestinian mothers want the same things for their children Israeli mothers want for their children' is another base lie.
This president is a mortal threat to the survival of America and the West.
An American president is sworn to uphold the US Constitution, to defend America from enemies both foreign and domestic. I am not one to casually use the "T" word to describe Bush. I know there are conservatives that do. I am not going to argue the point. The facts speak for themselves.
Your view that Bush did not pressure Sharon to evict Jews from Gaza is a commonly held notion -- especially held by Bush-supporters -- one I believe to be held in error.
I will attempt to make a case for this in the next post, within the next hour or so.
A little history is in order. I try to save news stories touching on this. Perhaps there are several I have missed.
when i say that the disengagement was sharon's fault rather than bush's, i say that as a sharon opponent rather than a bush supporter
ReplyDeletei'm not a bush supporter, see
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2006/12/going-distance-why-george-bush-failed.html
I am a realist however, Bush is to blame for allowing his administration to pressure israel under olmert
disengagement however was a fait accompli that sharon brought to bush and bush decided to back
that isn't to say that the bush administration would not have been pressuring olmert on gaza if disengagement hadn't happened...
america's enemy is indeed within the constellation of the islamic ideology, but confronting that reality takes more courage than bush or most politicians running for his job have on tap
Bear with me.
ReplyDeletePresident Bush made public his "vision" of a Palestinian terrorist state in the Holy Land in early October 2001, in fulfillment of a pledge he gave in late August 2001 to then Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz. This has become known as the "Saudi plan."
"Shibley Telhami, a Middle East expert at the University of Maryland, agrees that Bush formally made creating a Palestinian state the goal of U.S. policy, largely to appeal to the Muslim world at a time when the United States had attacked Afghanistan."
Ariel Sharon's initial and proper response was to remind Mr. Bush of the 1938 betrayal of Czechoslovakia at Munich; an appropriate analogy.
Sharon: "I call on the Western democracies and primarily the leader of the free world, the United States: Do not repeat the dreadful mistake of 1938 when enlightened European democracies decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for a convenient temporary solution. Do not try to appease the Arabs on our expense. This is unacceptable to us. Israel will not be Czechoslovakia. Israel will fight terrorism."
Quoting from CNN: "What angered Washington most was Sharon's comparison to Europe ceding parts of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, suggesting that in its aggressive effort to court Arab nations for the coalition against terrorism, the United States was turning its back on Israel's security."
An miffed Secretary of State Colin Powell got on the phone to Sharon. This is when Sharon capitulated. The was the beginning of the end and the beginning of Sharon's futile effort to do an "end run" around Bush's determination to destroy Israel. This is the making of a traitorous Jewish Prime Minister. In the following months, Ariel Sharon's worst "anti-democratic" side came to the fore.
Note the pusillanimous Sharon retreat from nobility:
CNN: 'In a statement issued late Friday, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon noted the, quote, "deep friendship and special relationship" between the two nations and saluted President Bush for a, quote, "bold and courageous decision to fight terrorism."
'It was an about-face from a day earlier, when Sharon lashed out'.
Make no mistake about it, from this Friday, early October 2001, after Sharon did this volte face, it was all down hill for Israel, for the wonderful residents of Gush Katif, for whatever greatness Sharon had achieved over the years as a war hero; Sharon sold himself and his nation out to a little man from Crawford, Texas; a man that used his daddy's influence to avoid military service in a war most conservatives supported and continue to support.
Yossi Klein Halevi, November 25, 2002: "Sharon's achievement has been to embody the new center-right sensibility. Though long identified with the West Bank settlement movement, Sharon rarely invokes settlements anymore. Instead, he has taken on his own party's hard-liners, led by Netanyahu, who oppose a Palestinian state.
"Sharon now concedes that a Palestinian state is inevitable."
No one. Not even Professor Paul Eidelberg, can make the vacuous claim that Israelis who voted for Likud and Sharon in the 2003 elections did not vote for disengagement, expulsion, retreat and a Palestinian terror state. Sharon made his position clear well before the 2003 elections. "Israel would have to make painful concessions" and "a Palestinian state is inevitable."
Notice Sharon's rationale for expelling Jews from their homes:
Ellis Shuman April 13, 2004: "To our dismay, there is no leadership on the Palestinian side that is willing to fight terror, as it is committed (in the road map peace initiative)," Sharon said. The diplomatic process is in a "frozen state, and in light of THE MANY DANGEROUS PLANS (emphasis mine -- S.K.) that are sprouting like mushrooms after the rain, including the Geneva and SAUDI PLANS, I reached a conclusion that we need a different plan, a plan of disengagement," Sharon said.
What is clear Sultan, Sharon hoped to do a diplomatic end run around Bush and his Saudi friend's plan but like a fool who is led to the slaughter, he was too clever by half.
President Bush acted the shy teenager on his first date when Sharon introduced his disengagement plan at a White House meeting. Then Bush muscled the plan into the national Republican party platform, August 2004, insisting it was part and parcel of his own road map to Israel's annihilation. Over the objections of Cathie Adams, Texas delegate to the national platform writing committee, the Bush -- Rove people got their way.
Our platform reads in part:
"We support President Bush’s vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.......
Republicans agree with President Bush that Israel’s plan to remove all settlements from Gaza and several settlements from the West Bank is a courageous step toward peace in the face of continuing terrorist violence. This initiative can stimulate progress toward peace as laid out in the Road Map launched by President Bush...."
Could Neville Chamberlain have written a better text than this?
Right after the mass-expulsion / deportation of Jews from Gush Katif, Gaza, August 2005, Condoleezza Rice said "this is only the beginning."
And it was as we are witnessing this the first day of the new year.
Sultan, you wrote: "I am a realist however, Bush is to blame for allowing his administration to pressure Israel under olmert."
ReplyDeleteSee, this is where you -- many others who join you -- and I disagree. I do not accept that George W. Bush is "allowing" his administration to pressure Israel, either under Olmert or under former Prime Minister Sharon, who was also put under heavy-handed, immoral administration pressure.
This administration, this U.S. Secretary of State, U.S. State Department, are all doing exactly what Bush wants it / them to do.
All these people, employees and entities are carrying out George W. Bush's policies. This is a hands on president. He does not take a back seat to anyone.
Ask former U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, who is in charge in this White House.
If people are dismayed at some of the anti-Semitic things Dr. Rice has said about the Jews -- comparisons she has made to Alabama's White racists -- and done to Israel, don't think for a minute she is not representing Mr. Bush.
To me, George W. Bush and his father are as much anti-Semites as is vicious anti-Semitic, close personal friend James Baker.
the bottom line is that a palestinian state had always been on the agenda of the white house since at least the 90's if not the 80's
ReplyDeleteclinton and bush sr actually put it on the road to reality and bush was following up on that under pressure from arab allies, but there was no actual traction on that front until olmert
america was not looking for sharon's disengagement, nor was anyone in the administration happy about it, they wanted an agreement and negotiations and photo ops and a settlement they could take credit fit, instead they got chaos
bush chose to back sharon but it was not what the saudis or the diplomats wanted
sharon was no doubt influenced by the reality of american pressure, but the united states had not actually managed to get him to do anything
in the end sharon came up with a different vision of israel and made a series of disastrous mistakes, international and american pressure was a factor, but so was the fraudulent demographic data he had been fed as well as the appealing idea of ending the long torturous process and making it impossible for a successor to make massive concessions for a palestinian state, by instead unilaterally defining what such a state would be
there was a certain amount of daring and appeal to such a plan, though it was of course doomed to be a grotesque and undemocratic disaster
Bush is a hands on president or was, but not a master of a coherent foreign or domestic policy
ReplyDeletehe's changed his political direction more than once already as i've written
with 2006 his administration began to implode and he's turned over major chunks of what's left to Rice
with the setbacks in iraq, instead of immediately retooling, he bought into the arab bargain that stabilizing the "palestinian issue" would save the day
Sultan wrote: "with 2006 his administration began to implode and he's turned over major chunks of what's left to Rice....with the setbacks in iraq..."
ReplyDeleteNotice I've not mentioned God once. I do not believe I have.
I am not an overly religious guy however, the Bible is very clear -- as a self-professed Christian George W. Bush of all people should know this -- "I will bless those that bless you and the one who curses you, I will curse," is an eternal warning as are the stern warnings to the nations to not tamper with the land of Israel.
The land of Israel belongs to the Almighty according to the ancient prophets of Israel.
Bush is tampering with the land of Israel. Consequently the Republican party (my party) and our nation, some believe, will ultimately suffer for it.
Obviously this is mere conjecture, as is the coincidence Hurricane Katrina smashed into the Gulf Coast within hours of the forcible expulsions of Jews from Gush Katif only because they are Jews.
It is interesting speculation. I do not in the least dismiss it.
Why would a self-professed Christian president lightly dismiss these clear warnings?
Unless as some believe, he is a down-right phony who has taken his largely pro-Israel, conservative Christian base for a ride?
To me George W. Bush is a phony Christian. I've listened long enough to all this nonsense from him that he consults God on all his foreign policy decisions. I don't know what god Bush consults. Even his favorite (Jewish) philosopher would reject him.
If there is a world to come, with its capital in Jerusalem, Bush and his friends are not going to be happy campers.
i agree with you steve and I've written about katrina and gush katif myself
ReplyDeletehttp://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2005/09/hand-of-g-d-that-brought-flood.html
but george bush's christianity is a dr. phil sort of christianity, more of a self-help program than a religion under a true G-d who has both absolute commandments and absolute will
it's a common malaise in the western world and it creates a hollow self-centered religion that is long on talk and short on principles
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2005/09/hand-of-g-d-that-brought-flood.html
ReplyDeleteVery good article.
Post a Comment