How Bush Seriously Hurt Israel

I've been thinking more about the anti-Zionist jackholes on the Left, specifically my recent confrontation with Robert Wright and his ilk (and by that I mean his commenters). Since I try to be wise, I have refrained from commenting on most websites, but this is hard because like anyone born before the internet revolution, I treat emails/blogs as if they were personal communications. If a person said something to me personally what they normally put in a blog, or email, I would react with verbal violence. That was the world until 2000 or so.

Before the internet: to insult someone is to commit an act of violence and can be responded with equal venom. But the internet changed the etiquette in 2 ways: (1) the commonly recognized "internet jackass identity takeover" (aka Online disinhibition effect), which is, to quote the Wiki: "loosening (or complete abandonment) of social restrictions and inhibitions that would otherwise be present in normal face-to-face interaction during interactions with others on the Internet." People know about this, right? It's pretty common.

However, I am claiming that there's an important balance to this, which is (2) that you will interact with people on the internet that you will never encounter in normal life. This is true on philosophical and practical levels. Philosophically, you can potentially meet all 3 billion internet users while online - and in real life you probably have interacted with, at most, 5000 people (more if you're a public figure). But practically it's true because the disembodied words you read could be coming from a raging, drooling lunatic that you would run from in real life. As the iconic 1993 New Yorker cartoon stated: On the Internet, Nobody Knows You're a Dog.

There's probably more to add - I have my sociology knowledge confirmed now, as I have achieved my terminal MA in SOC - about how people who comment on websites are more likely to not understand polite human interaction and/or are partisan shills who in either case will be more extreme, rude, and belligerent than anyone you would barely associate with.

You may ask what does this have to do with George Bush and Israel? Well, I have been wondering why the left-wing hates Israel so very very much. I have a few theories, some I will try to publish one of these days. But here are a few of them (I'm sure I've talked about a lot of these things before, so I'm sorry to repeat myself):

1. The current government of Israel is one of the worst right-wing groups in Israel's history. I actually believe this. Bibi has aligned himself with Avigdor Lieberman and the Haredi parties, and the glimmer of hope that we had for rationality - the joining of Kadima to the gov't - was quashed yesterday over a Haredi issue. So, just as the anti-American sentiment skyrocketed while Bush was in office, so anti-Israeli sentiment has under Bibi-Lieberman. It's sad but true. And just as people all over the world asked in 2004 how Americans could be so dumb, painting all of us with that brush, so Israelis are painted with the anti-Likud brush.
   
   
2. The key problem is this: Bush and crew committed two sins that the American left will not forget (for 15 more years, if the post-Vietnam amnesia is any indicator): (a) we attacked Iraq under false pretenses, and (b) Bush supporters, especially the shadowy 'neocons' who trumpeted for war, put pro-Israelism as the centerpiece of their rhetoric and policy positions.
   
   Now, as I've said many times, Bush was a terrible 'friend' of Israel. He (i) destabilized the region with the botched attack on Iraq, which eliminated the historic buffer on Iran, and also convincing Iran (and every other Axis of Evil card-member) that they'd need nukes to prevent another crazy invasion. Bush (ii) forced Palestinian elections which led to the legitimation of Hamas, and (iii) whenever it was convenient, Bush held Israel's feet to the fire for concessions.
   
   Despite the truth of all this, there are many Jews (mostly Orthodox) who believe that Bush was great and that we need more Bush wackiness. So the Left has a legitimate belief that "pro-Israel" people can be aligned with Bush policies.
   
   
3. The two problems come together in this way: The Left believes that just like Iraq was pumped up to be a threat when they weren't, so is Iran. And just like the supporters of the Iraq war were also big supporters of Israel, so are the people who talk about Iran's threat. And it's not helpful that the Press constantly describes Iran's potential nukes as primarily a problem because of Israel.
   
   
4. Now, you might say, that Iran is truly a threat, unlike Iraq. And that Iranian nukes are feared by all the countries in the region, as the Wikileaks documents showed. And that Iranian nukes would be a direct threat to the US, whether its in our military bases, or citizens traveling abroad, or even to the 'homeland.' Yes, all three points are correct. And those who don't understand the 3 points are dangerously ignorant (or purposefully so due to their hatred of Jews, cf. Mel Gibson). And that's where we bring it all together:
   
   
5. Because (A) Bush completely invented the Iraqi threat out of thin air, because it was an elaborate con-job that involved the Defense Dept, the State Dept, and the CIA, and because (B) Bush followers focus so intently on Israel, and because (C) the current Israeli government displays the same belligerent idiocy as Bush's = that allows generally low info or low concern people (i.e. 99% of Americans) to think that the Iran situation is the same BS as Iraq in 2002.

Again, the Leftist anti-Zionist idiots are contemptible and I don't exonerate their hate. But I believe that Bush's policies made the current situation that much harder for those of us who want *all* Americans to take Iran seriously.

Moreover, the feeling that Israel somehow benefited from the Bush evil, and that they want more of the same from America, is allowing latent anti-Semitism to rise in America, and to give legitimacy to the rabid anti-Semites, under the guise of "Israel criticism."

Is Sullivan an Anti-Zionist? Part 3

OK, this may be strike three. As I detailed in two (recently published back-)posts here and here, Andrew Sullivan has been worrying me, as of late, with his unnecessary swipes against Israel. But yesterday he totally crossed the line. Here's the letter I wrote him:

Dear Andrew,

You were making an important point in the [linked] post about taking Plain and Cheney seriously as potential GOP candidates. Then you said this (emphasis mine):

"[Palin and Cheney] represent a real populist and authoritarian option for a declining power. In the face of a bewilderingly changing world, they stand for white America, the extension of its power across the globe, the elevation of torture as a core American value, the permanent Israeli occupation of the West Bank, and American occupation of client states like Iraq and Afghanistan."

Now, I have been a Democrat - and a liberal - all my life. I'm also a born American. I am repulsed by Cheney and Palin and the entire Republican party, and this revulsion has partially come from my growing up in the Reagan era (another Republican who I believe damaged my country). And I am also a Zionist and in favor of nuance and wisdom about the Arab-Israeli conflict. You are committing a great wrong by equating the Palin/Cheney lust for torture and preemptive war with anything to do with Israel. Israel's occupation of the West Bank is a matter of international law and is something with which reasonable people can disagree. I am a liberal, and a Zionist, and I'm calling you to task.

I know Goldblog defends your Zionist bona-fides and you get angry when someone accuses you of being Anti-Zionist... but that was an evil thing you said. It's so strange - you single out the behavior of a U.S. ally as a symbol of a domestic political party's depravity. That's not such a 'Zionist' thing to do.

Why are you so insistent to be called a 'Zionist' anyway? Just say that you're neutral about Israel - that you're treating it with the same ignorance and apathy that you would for Kashmir or Northern Ireland or Quebec, or any other of our U.S. allies.

It reminds me of Ta-Nehisi Coates' talk about 'racism' - that it's impossible to call a racist by that title in the U.S. despite a person's actual bigoted words and deeds. [ed: e.g. how Rush Limbaugh or Joe 'You Lie' Wilson will push back against being called racist even though they clearly are.] So to with you - just admit that being a Zionist isn't actually that important. And, again speaking as a liberal and a Democrat, your support for Reagan while you attack Cheney makes you sound daft.

Sincerely, JC

No, I don't expect him to respond. And I really should have cc:ed Goldblog, but he's not my constituency. And, as I said in part 2, there are reasons to read Sully as an info-resource and not as an editorialist. So be it.

More Thoughts on the Victory

Some points on the incredible victory:

1. We just elected a black guy with a Muslim name president. Just gotta say that, over and over, until I fully understand how incredible this all is.
   
   
2. I see the Obama election as a type of 'virtual impeachment' of Bush. We won't get the chance to do the real thing - we still may be able to put the SOB behind bars - but the election of a brilliant, articulate, African-American, Muslim-named, liberal intellectual Constitutional scholar is a point-by-point repudiation of the stupid, mush-mouthed, pampered patrician rich-boy Texas oil-millionaire, white-bread legacy Christian conservative incurious human rights abuser.
   
   
3. Democrats haven't had a win like this since 1964. And as a result of that election, we received Civil Rights and the Great Society. And even if you think the latter was bad or flawed, you have to take into account how bad it was to be in America *before* those programs were enacted. 1964 ushered in a state of civility and greatness - as the names declare - to America. And that's great change. And that's what we can do in 2008.
   
   
4. For my fellow Hebrew brethren who are worried that Obama's win will bring about the destruction of Israel, or whatever: There is no support or proof for your fears. The fears are based on innuendo, ignorance and in some cases racism. The worst thing to happen to Israel in the past few years wasn't Oslo (which was a mitigated disaster), nor the Clinton Camp David Accords (whose blame can be laid on Ehud "the Other" Barak's feet), rather the worst has been the legitimizing election of Hamas to the Palestinian leadership and the subsequent creation of a pure terrorist state in Gaza. And that was all Bush, baby. Bush also created a terrible threat to Israel vis-a-vis the Iraq war - which has strengthen Iran (taking away it's biggest foe, replacing it with a sympathetic Shiite regime) and emboldened Tehran to pursue nukes. All Bush. And McCain would have continued this insanity. Even if Obama turns out to be like Carter - which isn't borne out by evidence - Carter was better for Israel than Bush!
   
   
5. It's a press axiom - which naturally means its boneheaded - that Obama's toughest job now begins: the cleaning up of the nation. Blah blah blah. No. That was not the toughest job. Becoming the first black president, as a first term Senator with a Muslim name, defeating both the Clinton machine and the Republican party, was the toughest job. Cleaning up the country will be not be as tough. Why? Well, first of all because it's just an obvious point. But second of all, because most of our problems were CAUSED, they didn't just 'happen.' Bush created this fate. All Obama needs to do is not be a horrible person/executive and it's already an epic win.
   
   
6. I'm disheartened by the possibility that Coleman and Smith may have been re-elected. While the landslide for president is a nice thing, if Obama's coattails weren't enough to defeat Republicans in blue states, then its a bad sign.
   
   
7. It's so sweet that Elizabeth Dole was spanked by her opponent, Democrat Kay Hagan. Dole ran a disgusting race and deserves to have lost. It's ironic: her husband ran for president in 1996 and conducted a comparatively clean and honorable race. Yeah, he lost, (159-379, see map to the left) but he kept his dignity, soul, and the good graces of history. I've long said that 1996 was one the only years where both major tickets had great candidates such that a victory either way would have been palatable for the country (as opposed to, lets say, 1988 which was wretched either way). So Bob Dole ran with respect and his name can be seen as a watchword for how to lose with grace. Then came Dole's doppelganger, John McCain. Another war-hero, Senate lion, known for bipartisanship and moderate views (note: McCain's rep was largely myth while Bobdole's was true)... and McCain ran a shameless, horrid campaign (see more below). And "Liddy" Dole chose, for her defeat, to be like McCain instead of Bob. And her name is mud.
   
   
8. The great victory for America, and the world, has a the concomitant benefit of validating the clean, respectful style of Obama and repudiating the sewer methods of McCain-Palin. That will have far-reaching consequences and all for the best. After Bush-Rove won dirty in 2000, and dirtier in 2004, it seemed we were doomed to a future of sleaze and fear every election cycle. Not anymore. True, many unregenerate Goopers will believe that were it not for the cratering economy etc. the slash-burn tactics would have worked. I disagree (for the billion reasons I've written about before), and the Goopers may not learn from their mistakes (considering they are now the party against science, evidence, and expertise), but I trust cooler brains will prevail.
   
   
9. Related to the horrible Republican tactics, and the paradox of the McCain campaign, was the McCain concession speech. So odd. Just like how John Kerry and Al Gore spoke with fire and talent at the Democratic convention - and many of us asked where these people were when they ran their national campaigns! - so too with McCain last night. What a gracious and honorable speech. And it was delivered so well! With clarity, confidence and decency. We should ask "where was this guy on the campaign trail?" but also note that any person who sounds better when no longer campaigning (Gore, Kerry, McCain) obviously has mental reservations, and a fundamental problem as a politician. Does this 'mental game' automatically presage defeat? Not sure; which successful politician sounded better when out of office than in? I can think of a number, successful pols, who were better while running than not. Something to inspect.
   
   
10. And, of course, at that same concession speech we heard the base of the Republicans booing Obama's name, shouting and bellowing out who-can-imagine-what craziness. The crowd was the embodiment of the McCain campaign, the speech was the embodiment of the mythical McCain that the press apotheosized and who I had liked back at the beginning of the millennium.
    
    
11. Let's not forget Joe Biden. I am very happy for him; I genuinely like the guy. And - speaking as a rabbi and a budding scholar of the sociology of religion - the president-elect is just another Protestant, but we just elected our first Catholic VP, and only the second non-Protestant in the White House. Wow.

More later.

Diplomacy, Appeasement, GOP Credibility

I was on the road for Appeasement-Gate (or Bush-Knesset-gate), when Bush accused strawmen of appeasing dictators, just like bad people did back in the 30s with Hitler. (Oh, funny side-point, turns out Prescott Bush, the president's Senator grandfather, was one of those appeasers... heh). Anyway, in the past 8 years, Bush has shown either to mean exactly what his words sound like or to be a complete liar, whichever happens to be worst at the time. That is not a joke. When he sounds like he's saying something good, he's lying ("heckuva job", "we don't torture") and when it sounds bad, it is bad.

Bush's comments at the Knesset were OBVIOUSLY referring to Obama and the Democrats in general. Duh. Duh duh duh. And the Press understood it too, which is an uncommon admission, given their slavish acceptance of every lie uttered by the Bush administration so far (cf. Iraq war, Iran, torture, civil liberties, the attorney firing).

Yeah, some bullet-heads are still claiming that Obama overreacted, but they're the same people who believe that Bush is the reincarnation of King Arthur and Richard "First Crusade" Lionheart, so whatever.

McCain, gotta love him, is so maverick-y that he immediately followed Bush's lead. That'll show 'em how independent you are John! You mavericky mavericking maverick, you.

What I wonder is why ANYBODY believes that the GOP knows what it's doing with foreign policy anymore. Seriously. The concept that diplomacy=appeasement has resonance only if you are 6 years old and are presently in a schoolyard. Outside of that puerile universe, diplomacy is how actual real life occurs. I'd go so far as to say that the bright-shining-line between childish and adult personality is the recognition that life is about compromise and negotiation and not about violence and absolutes.

Bush is a big baby, this is clear. He is a bully and a spoiled brat. Bully proof comes from how he treats those out of power; spoiled brattishness has been amply shown with his recent comments about nobly giving up golf in recognition of the sacrifice of the thousands of casualties from his foolish war.

McCain is following along because he doesn't actually appear to possess leadership qualities. Yeah, maybe when he was in the military, but in the Senate? That's the downside of being a maverick: unless you can translate your rebellion into a movement, then you're just a troublemaker, a noisemaker, not a leader.

Why is diplomacy not appeasement. Here's a good summary by Matt Yglesias:

The problem here is that, once again, we see hawks not understanding what diplomacy is. But think of diplomacy as a kind of bargaining. Like you might do at a yard sale or something. Diplomacy doesn't exist at one end of a spectrum of coercive measures -- we try war, we try sanctions, we try diplomacy -- any more than bargaining operates on a smooth continuum with robbery. The point of bargaining with a vendor is to see whether or not it's possible to find mutually acceptable terms that improve both parties' positions. In terms of diplomacy with Iran, the idea isn't that Obama's steely gaze would force concessions out of the Iranians, the idea is that we might be able to give Iran something Iran deems more valuable than weapons-grade nuclear material, and in exchange we would get verifiable disarmament.

The "something" here would presumably be some form of security assurances plus an accommodation to Iranian interests in Iraq, along with Teheran and Washington laying out a pathway to gradual normalization of relations in exchange for an end to Iranian support for terrorism and Palestinian rejectionist groups. Would it be possible to strike such a deal? Maybe, maybe not. But the purpose of a negotiating session would be to find out by attempting to do the bargaining rather than having five more years of back-and-forth blog posts speculating about the possibility. The general theory of diplomacy is that rational actors should, through negotiations, be able to achieve positive-sum settlements rather than negative-sum conflicts. It's always possible that your would-be negotiating partner will prove irrational (as George W. Bush did when he rejected Iranian peace overtures several years back) and the process will fail, but it's worth attempting in good faith.

And just in case Yglesias is too much of a squishy leftie to truly understand things, here are two recent examples of (sane) Republicans who agree, Sen. Specter (from Yglesias) and James Baker III (from Sullivan):





Summaries: Specter is asking Sec of Defense Gates why Bush is calling negotiation appeasement when negotiation is normal, logical, and sensible. Specter assails the Bush perspective and hopes Gates can talk some sense into the President.

Baker is even more clear; he says that a strong leader talks to enemies. He himself travelled to Syria 15 times, on Bush Sr's request, to get Syria to recognize Israel and on the 16th trip Syria agreed to negotiate at the Madrid Peace Talks. Baker, while an anti-Semite GOP running-dog, is also from the time when the GOP were considered competent. Not any more; Baker (and Specter) are as slimy as Obama. Only Bush and McCain know what to do!

St. Bush

During the Bush Honeymoon Period (from 9/11 until Katrina), when he seemed unstoppable, triumphalist Christers would state proudly that they love the fact that a devout Christian was in the White House. Even back then, I was advising them to not adopt him as their own as he appeared to be a mean and stupid person. We can't always choose who will be successful from our ethnic/cultural subgroup, but we can choose to adopt the person as a hero. As a Jewish-American, I want to adopt Albert Einstein (even though he wasn't very religious) and not Jonathan Pollard (who has found Jehovah in prison, I've been told). So it is with religious Christians and Bush... don't adopt him! - he's a cruel moron! - but I'm not sure they've gotten the message yet.

Here's a list of 50 quotes from Bush about his religious faith from the Aug 8 2007 London Times, compiled by their Religion reporter Libby Purves.

In the list are famous lines (like #17 "I couldn't imagine somebody like Osama bin Laden understanding the joy of Hanukkah" - White House, Dec. 10, 2001), but also just inane statements of his "simple" faith. I say simple because he seems as committed to religious terminology but not religious behavior. He probably likes praying because it's done alone and in direct communication with his chosen, self-defined Deity. As such, it is an act of egotism, not devotion. Minyan forces you to pray with others, to depend on others. Kneeling on your rich carpet to communicate one-on-one with Heaven as if you were a modern-day Moshe Rabbeinu is barely tolerated in halakha.

And outside of prayer, what does Bush do that can be called religious? I doubt he gives much to charity (I'm trying to find the numbers online; download his disclosures here). And let's not forget about the last president who was gloriously touted as a religious man who'd bring Christian principles to bear on White House policy: James Earl Carter.

Prager INRI

More and more I am deciding that certain people cannot be listened to anymore. It's the extremity of our times - the stakes are high, people are more extreme, and true colors are being shown. Some people like to ignore that our Executive Branch has engaged in criminal activities and possibly crimes against humanity. Some of those who deny these crimes have so sunk their fate with Bush & Crew that they need to get even more extreme.

I mentioned a few weeks ago that Dennis Prager has lost any early merit he had; his fine mind now twisted into saying absurd, hatful things.

Yesterday, he published a column where he argues that Ellison, the first and only Muslim to serve in Congress, should be prevented from using a Koran to swear into his oath of office.

Prager was educated in yeshiva. And yet, like many Jewish Republicans, he has forgotten that freedom is good because its good and because it has saved Jews from prosecution.

Prager supported Mel Gibson's movie, "The Passion" and naturally needed to defend Mel after his drunken tirade against the Jews. So now he's letting his GOP validated self-hatred devolve into total Christianist racism.

Prager in fact demonstrates how any solid belief in the GOP will require a definition of America as (fundamentalist) Christian. As he says:

[Ellison] should not be allowed to do [use the Koran] -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

Dennis, dennis, dennis. Why don't you convert out, already, let your family and fans sit shiva, and save us further grief.

JTA Says Pelosi is Pro-Israel

Considering her attacks on Jane Harmen, I had my doubts. But the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) - the best single Jewish news agency out there - claims that:

Pelosi’s support for Israel is heartfelt

The daughter of Thomas D’Alesandro Jr., a former mayor of Baltimore, Pelosi grew up in a Democratic family with Jewish neighbors and friends.... there’s even a soccer field in the Haifa area of Israel named after [her] family.

That's good enough for me.

Martin Peretz on US-Israel Relations in Bush Part III

Martin Peretz, the publisher (and owner) of The New Republic actively maintains one of the only must-read sources journalism/commentary for anyone who claims to be moderate (center-left or center-right). His daily blog, the Spine, is the tip of the New Republic's spearpoint. And, as should be true for all thinking moderates, he is profoundly pro-Israel.

Today's Spine has a comment about the Bush administration's potential turn-away from Israel after the midterm election. Personally, I label this period Bush III because it is a combination of the anti-Israel Bush Sr. and the apocalyptic Bush Jr.

A great line from Peretz about the history of US-Israel relations:

"Israel ... ever since its founding, has had--with the exceptions of the Eisenhower, Carter, and first Bush administration--more or less continuous diplomatic and military support [from the US]."

Eisenhower is before my time, but I always felt that Carter and Bush Sr. were the worst modern presidents for Israel with Clinton, Reagan, and Bush Jr. as the best.

{2009 Update: Peretz pic from here}

Bush Placed by God?

A letter I sent to Sullivan

This is regarding [your blog post about] the religious right and George W. Bush. [*link dead]

I am an orthodox Jew and I have heard some in the right-wing Jewish community say similar things to the quote you had from CNN:

"There are some people, and I'm one of them, that believe George Bush was placed where he is by the Lord. "

Whenever I hear someone say something like that I invariably reply, as an amateur theologian, "yes, Bush was placed as president by the Lord... but as a punishment."

The scary thing is that I don't know anymore if I am joking.

All the best for a good, new year

When I was a rabbi in NYC I heard this a lot after 9/11 - that it was better to have Bush in office than Gore because Bush is an uncomplicated thinker and a man of action. I argued that he was an idiot and it's never good to have idiots in charge, even if - by pure chance - they do something you agree with. I also said, and I have witnesses, that since he was immoral, it was dangerous to support thugs because of the inevitable backlash.

I also pushed back against the idea that Gore-Lieberman wouldn't have done the right thing after 9/11. Does anyone believe that anymore?

Backpost put up 2009-12-08.

Departure of Undersecretary Douglas Feith

At last, one of the idiots who led us into the debacle in Iraq is leaving: DoD Announces Departure of Undersecretary Douglas Feith.

According to the cognoscenti, he was the worst of the bunch (and that's saying a lot). He was in charge of "Policy" in the DOD - which means he was the one who let us believe that the attack was necessary and (who knows) could be the one who ordered the devastation at Abu Ghrab and Gitmo.

The worst part of it is, his claim for leaving is "personal and family reasons." As someone who actually likes living creatures and as someone capable of the human emotion of love I resent that a moral vampire like Feith uses his family as an excuse for getting out while the getting is good.

I also resent the fact that the only Jews that Bush has in his employ are shameful; but I guess they best reflect Bush's worldview: "Weaker at home, shamed around the world."

Backpost finished 2/11/05, 12:20 AM

Israeli Flag for War Crimes

In the description of American "war crimes" (that's what the story, War Crimes [washingtonpost.com], calls 'em), which includes our friendly torture of the random prisoners in Guantanamo, the interrogators would torment their victims with

"humiliations such as being wrapped in an Israeli flag."

That's a direct quote.

I love this. I love the fact that our government is torturing people. I love the fact that the people in Guantanamo are denied civil and human rights. I love that the legal genius who allowed this to happen is our new Attorney General. I love that Bush is such a friend of Israel that he uses their flag as a tool of torture and humiliation.

Can one of you GOP supporters explain this to us?

Backpost finished 2/15/05

FBI entrapped AIPAC

Bush is the best friend Israel has ever had - at least better than Clinton - at least better than his father - or actually, I'm not sure if he's such a friend. A few months ago there was a celebrated case where a member of AIPAC was entrapped in a FBI sting. Ya see, it seems that the FBI investigated two members of AIPAC who have been accused of spying for Israel, giving them details of the secret US deliberations with the Iranians. [Recent reports accuse them of leaking the secrets of the McShwarma]. Here's the original story (CBS news)

However, as the Jerusalem Post indicates the FBI set the whole thing up. It's pretty complicated - but as far as I can tell, the FBI entrapped two AIPAC members as part of a strange paranoid witch-hunt. As this article indicates, there's a subtle double-standard against Jews in the intelligence agencies about loyalty to Israel.

Thank you Ashcroft for keeping America safe. How many terrorists have you caught yet? None?

Backpost finished, kinda, 2/17/05. This is still difficult to finish because I still don't have all the right details...

The Posts From This Morning

Blogger was worthless; it went down so thoroughly this morning (doubtless from the overload of amateur pundits like yours truly) that all my emailed posts were eaten. Here's the extent of this morning's turmoil:

Wednesday, November 03, 2004 8:44 AM
Blogger Overtaxed
Blogger is overtaxed so I post from the site so I'm doing this by email

Wednesday, November 03, 2004 8:49 AM
Devil's Due
I will give the devil, Karl Rove, his due. He managed to beat the 50% incumbent rule. My predictions were based on that; that undecideds break against the incumbent but by hook or by crook (a phrase which takes on an ominous meaning in Rove's context) he managed it. Even if Kerry is declared the winner in Ohio - and thus POTUS 44 - Rove's career is not over. He managed to pull a miracle, or whatever the diabolical equivalent of miracle is called.

This morning after services I gave a current state of the Electoral College (Bush 254, Kerry 252) and said that you can look at the returns as an optimist or pessimist. A pessimist says that nobody won while the optimist says both people won - so everyone is happy! I did encourage everyone to take the next few days as a vacation from actually having a president since nobody seems to like either one of these guys.

Naturally, I expect Kerry to be successful in Ohio - because the numbers of voters who were cheated came from the Democratic areas. Don't be fooled by the GOP Lying Machine - the fraud will be uncovered.

And if they manage to steal this one too, then this will be a very dark time.

Wednesday, November 03, 2004 9:53 AM
Still No Blogger
Blogger still isn't allowing me on - or putting up my recent posts. I'm sitting here exhausted and furious. I'm especially angry at Kerry for not coming himself with a public statement of confidence. All I see from the online NYTimes and WPost is Andrew Card and a big banner headline "Bush Confident of Victory." Kerry needs to come out strong, and he's not and I want an explanation.

Note, the "confidence" thing is all part of the Rove playbook. By playing the press into declaring him the victor, all attempts to actually count the votes are called "recounts" instead of, uh, ya know, "counts."

I've heard and read some frum Jews saying that this is God giving another victory to George W. I want to remind ya'll that this is a vote, not a lottery, and so our fate is being sealed by human action - but even then, God's invisible Hand could very well be giving Bush victory but as a punishment. That's how it feels to me.

Wednesday, November 03, 2004 12:03 PM
Disaster
Kerry conceded.

I don't know what happened; all the polls were off-base, all the information I had was wrong; I guess my fundamental optimism that people would make the right choice was foolhardy. I feel as if a great worldwide tragedy has occurred. It's like 9/11 - but instead of seeing the mass murder, I have the nightmares of all that this criminal government can perpetrate.

The only good thing about Kerry was his competitive spirit, that he would fight and fight and fight and he just *poof* gave up. I am sick, scared, and devastated. God help us.

Wednesday, November 03, 2004 12:38 PM
Edwards
According to the AP, Edwards was fighting Kerry to stay alive... to put off concession until the votes were counted. Again and again, it's so clear, Edwards should have been the candidate. My frustration valves have burst, I'm too exhausted to even fight, please let me wake up and let this be a long long nightmare.

God Did Not Support Iraq War

OK, prepare for another weird Bush ally reversal. As you may have noticed, Bush does not hold onto allies well. All the decent people of his administration have bolted (except for Powell whose loyalty can be ascribed either to a favor to Bush Sr. or his military ethics). O'Neill, Clarke, my man DiIulio, etc. Now even the wacky are fleeing.

Pat Robertson, the evangelical politician/cleric (dual class!), said on CNN Tuesday night that God was worried about the war but Bush scoffed at the warning.

A key passage:

Robertson, in an interview with CNN that aired Tuesday night, said God had told him the war would be messy and a disaster. When he met with Bush in Nashville, before the war Bush did not listen to his advice, Robertson said, and believed Saddam Hussein was an evil tyrant who needed to be removed.

Considering that Bush is a non-denominational evangelical Protestant superfreak, and so is Robertson, you'd think Bush would listen to a master. Nope.

Robertson, like other Bush allies who utter uncomfortable truths (see Duelfer about WMD and Rumsfeld about the Sadam-Bin Laden link) had to rapidly retract:

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "Of course, the president never made such a comment."

Robertson released a statement about Bush late Wednesday in which he said, "I emphatically stated that I believe 'the blessing of heaven is upon him' and I am persuaded that he will win this election and prevail on the war against terror in order to keep America safe from her avowed enemies."

I'd be more entertained if I weren't so scared.

Strength for Israel

I will write soon B"N about why Orthodox Jews seem convinced that you are not frum unless you will vote for Bush. I will also B"N try to explain why a good frum Jew does not need to vote for Bush and quite possibly should not vote for Bush.

Until then, I wish to dispel one more lie. In the Edwards-Cheney debate we saw that Edwards - and by extension Kerry - was very strong for Israel. Cheney, and by more than just extension Bush, was disappointing.

I give you the transcript's exchange:

EDWARDS: Well, first of all, I do agree that we've been largely absent, not entirely absent, but largely absent from the peace-making process over the last four years.

And let me just say a couple of preliminary things and then talk about where we are now.

First, the Israeli people not only have the right to defend themselves, they should defend themselves. They have an obligation to defend themselves.

I mean, if I can, just for a moment, tell you a personal story. I was in Jerusalem a couple of years ago, actually three years ago, in August of 2001, staying at the King David Hotel.

We left in the morning, headed to the airport to leave, and later in the day I found out that that same day, not far from where we were staying, the Sbarro Pizzeria was hit by a suicide bomber in Jerusalem. Fifteen people were killed. Six children were killed.

What are the Israeli people supposed to do? How can they continue to watch Israeli children killed by suicide bombers, killed by terrorists?

They have not only the right to the obligation to defend themselves.

Now, we know that the prime minister has made a decision, a historic decision, to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza. It's important for America to participate in helping with that process.

Now, if Gaza's being used as a platform for attacking the Israeli people, that has to be stopped. And Israel has a right to defend itself. They don't have a partner for peace right now. They certainly don't have a partner in Arafat, and they need a legitimate partner for peace.

And I might add, it is very important for America to crack down on the Saudis who have not had a public prosecution for financing terrorism since 9/11.

And it's important for America to confront the situation in Iran, because Iran is an enormous threat to Israel and to the Israeli people

Cheney's response:

In respect to Israel and Palestine, Gwen, the suicide bombers, in part, were generated by Saddam Hussein, who paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers.

I personally think one of the reasons that we don't have as many suicide attacks today in Israel as we've had in the past is because Saddam is no longer in business.

We've been strong supporters of Israel. The president stepped forward and put in place a policy basically that said we will support the establishment of two states. First president ever to say we'll establish and support a Palestinian state nextdoor to Israelis.

But first, there has to be an interlocutor you can trust and deal with. And we won't have that, we don't have it now, in a Yasser Arafat. There has to be reform of the Palestinian system.

To summarize: Edwards says that Israel has a right to unilateral response, Arafat is not a peace partner, Israel can attack Gaza even after they pull out and that Saudi Arabia is a big threat

Cheney says that Saddam Hussein was causing terror attacks in Israel [presumably taking time out to coordinate the 9/11 attacks] and that Cheney is so so proud to say that he supports a Palestinian State.

Who's the friend of Israel??

VP Debate

Well, I got to watch this one and over and over I felt that greatest of American feelings - I could do better than these guys. Edwards had Cheney so many times in his sights and he just MISSED. He repeated too many of the same sound-bites from Thursday and I was able to think of bone-crushing one-liners while Edwards would just tap or bunt. Grrr.

The good news, though, is that Edwards (and by extension Kerry) came out actually STRONGER on Israel than Cheney. Among his many goofball lies, he even said that the reason why terrorist attacks have slowed in Israel is because Hussein is not around to give his 25K checks.

Usually, when meeting a delusional windbag, you wonder what it's like on their planet. Alas, Cheney has turned our world into his alternate reality... and that's why we need to unemploy him again. {Pic from Life.}

The Passion of the W

No, that's not a Sesame Street episode (much to my dismay), but a sad assessment of the popularity of the current President and why he is held in esteem by many. Just as Jews, secularists, and other non-Christians misjudged the eye-bulging power of Gibson's theocide fantasy "The Passion" so the popularity of the first Christian Right President has been misjudged.

George W does not seem to have much of an overt personality; his whole life he's been defined by someone else and by golly he's good at that. He was defined by Mommy, his Daddy, and Jack Daniels. Many non-Christian republicans (I think I know most of them personally) see him as the flag-draped defender of America after 9/11. He isn't, but he fills out a role well. It's the advantage of having an arid brain.

But for most of his rabid followers, and the core of the Republican party, George W is the embodiment of a devout Christian; and that makes him durn near infallible. The closest I can get to this view is if I were a Chassid and a fellow Chassid became President.

I say Chassid and not a fellow Jew because we Jews are notorious for attacking our own when they are in prominent positions (we may vote exclusively for Jewish candidates, but I heard too many people shy away from Gore in '00 because they didn't want Lieberman to be VP for "they may hate us" reasons)

The Christians in this country feel like an abused minority even though they consider themselves the "moral majority." They think the media is liberal and antagonistic and they believe there's no voice for them (despite the rabid vapid Right Wing press which is powerful and unapologetically partisan).

Again, see the "Passion" reaction - any attack on the movie was seen as an attack on Jesus H. himself. No matter that the movie - according to reliable reports - was badly made. Who cares about quality?! It's about Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezuz. I see the exact same reaction about Bush. He's a devout Thumper and if you attack his idiotic worldview, his inability to handle contrary information, his profligate past before his rebirth in the blood of the lamb - these are all traits that the Christian Right considers positive signs of a true believer!

Bush's support should thus be seen as rabid. His reaction to 9/11 is seen as a holy war, a crusade, and in the mind's of the Christian Right, that's a good thing! When Bush says that he's following the (direct) orders from God, the XR thinks that's accurate and wonderful. Catholics have the Pope, American Protestants have their Papist-President, Bush II.

Kerry has no chance against that. First, he's an unholy papist… and he's not even that frum! Again, showing that Edwards would have been a smarter choice. And I'm just assuming because he's a smiley gentile from North Carolina that he's frum.

I've said again and again that Jews need to be very careful with the Christian Right. They do what they want and that often means Holy War against those they consider unholy. They appear to celebrate ignorance and intolerance. And Bush is their prophet.

Pic found in 2009 here.

Explain Why Not Bush

I was asked tonight by a reader why I am calling for voting for Kerry and not Bush. The answer is that Bush needs to go and Kerry just happens to be the guy next in line.

Why does Bush need to go? One word: evil.

Or, as he would put it, 'evildoer.'

Let's remember Nixon. Nixon was as bad as we said he was then. People didn't believe someone could be that evil. He was.

And I'm not saying that everyone I disagree with is evil. I don't think that George Bush I was evil. James Baker, yes; Sununu, yes; not Bush Sr. Reagan wasn't, Carter wasn't, Ford wasn't. Nixon was. Bush Jr. is.

His support of Israel, his only redeeming quality, is a commodity to be bought and sold. He supports Israel not for the same reasons I do. I support Israel, as a thinking and moral American (not as a Jew) because it is the only Democracy in the Mideast, a steadfast friend to the US, and a stalwart moral force in the world as evidenced by their treatment of minorities and refugees.

Bush supports Israel because they're the only other country that has been fighting Arabs.

I said it many times before. Bush is a thief and a brute. He wants to keep in power so he can keep impoverishing the government and help his buddies in specific big businesses. Just look at his track record!

The war in Iraq was not Bush's idea. He's so happy just having a job (he's been a drunk and a loser all his life). Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted to attack Iraq. 9/11 was just a convenient excuse to do something they had planned from the beginning.

I ask the Republicans to not nominate Bush for re-election. Run someone decent and I will be happy. Have McCain, or another moral decent honest dude, run for president against Kerry. Without that, the Republicans have no choice either.

The Leader of the Free World is an Idiot

That is not an opinion, it is a fact. Anyone who saw last night's press conference (Text of Bush's Press Conference) should come to the same conclusion. If not, you have either (a) lowered your expectations so much that as long as he walks upright and zips his fly, we'll consider it a win, or (b) you are so blinded by ideology that you can't hear any criticism of the standard bearer.

Please, you republicans out there, I am willing to admit that Clinton was a tawdry horndog who couldn't keep his own pants on nor tell the truth when it would help him. I am willing to admit the manifest facts. Please, be honest, be confident in your own ideology and sanity, be a pal, admit that Bush is a joke.

I get peeved when the Israeli Left rationalize Arafat. I understand their position when they say "Arafat is a psychopathic killer but still the only hope for peace." But if they say "He's misunderstood; he wants peace; he is a cuddly dude" then we have no use for these ideologues.

Bush was an embarrassment last night. His two spiritual predecessors, Nixon and Reagan, were never this bad. Nixon knew what was going on even though he sounded like he was as crooked as a snake's support hose. And Reagan never knew what was going on, but he was, hands-down, The Great Communicator.

Bush, last night, couldn't answer a question. Couldn't admit - in even the most minor way - that he could have done better.

Arrogance is a punishable offense to the American mind; just ask Martha Stewart.

I just can't wait till Bush Jr. is back in Texas working for a business someone else built. For you republicans out there, let's make a deal. Howzibout you endure four years of a bad Democrat and we'll call it even. Let 2008 be the real election. Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush, or whatever. Huh? Gimme a call.

Why We Hate Bush?

Ted Rall demonstrates the danger of liberal philosophy; or at least the danger that poses if I get labeled a liberal. While I generally agree with him that it is moral to despise the government of G.W. Bush, he also despises the Israeli government – an act I consider immoral.

Most Orthodox Jews who support Bush do so because vis-à-vis Israel his government has been the best towards Israel in years. I disagree on principle but agree in action. Meaning that Clinton’s government was closest to Israel – they believed in Israel as a sovereign nation and as a friend – but only with the definition of Israel under the Labor government .

Bush’s crew supports Israel with a freaky neo-conservative, Christian Right, perspective which frightens me to death. But, so far, they support Likud (whom I support), so materially they are doing well for Israel.

Which, all told, is still not all that good. When the American government allows Israel to arrest Arafat, punish terrorists, and protect their citizens, then I will declare that government "good for Israel."

Liberals detest Israel largely because of bias and ignorance. The bias is against any government – the liberals think that individual citizens (especially unionized) are always correct when up against Big Interests (like governments and companies). Ironically, the best definition of a domestic liberal is someone who believes in big government, but that’s the Foreign Policy vs. Domestic Policy flip-flop that a lot of people suffer from (like me, I guess, hmmm).

The ignorance I refer to is the fact that these people are not acquainted with the facts. They see Arafat as a freedom fighter – which he would be if you only read headlines. It’s the same way I treat the Pakistan-Indian conflicts; that is, I don’t know any details and I make decisions based on gut.

So… why do I hate Bush. Rall says its not because Bush is an idiot. Nor because Bush is a hypocrite. Nor because of the fascism. Rather its because Bush stole the 2000 election.

I disagree. The stolen election is infuriating, but (alas) its History and not much we can do about it. I hate Bush because his government is using any excuse possible to mislead the nation as to their real objectives: making themselves rich and oppressing those who they dislike. The Bush administration is low, mean, and petty.

And because Bush & Co. are low, mean, and petty about Domestic issues – I fear that their attitude towards Israel is the same. As my man, Dave Barry, once said: "If he’s nice to you, and mean to the waiter, then he’s not a nice person."