Discontent With President Bush

All weekend I've been trying to formulate my discontent with the Bush administrations stance on terrorism. On the one hand, we go after tyrants such as Saddam which is a very good thing and our soldiers are doing a great job in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan and they should continue their job until it is finished. Lately, my problem has been with how our friends are being treated, especially Israel. Daniel in Brookline has a post that articulates my feelings. JPost: Spare Us the Lectures is a very good post that brings up the daily occurrence of terrorist attacks that are tried and have failed because of the diligence of the IDF and why relaxing border crossings will lead to more homicide bombings.

Israel faces the threat of daily attacks against her people and yet those in the Bush administration keep calling for more humanitarian gestures on the part of Israel.

This too is a standard refrain of the chorus within days of each attack: Why don't you make more "humanitarian gestures" to the Palestinians? Only a few days ago, Israel was treated to criticism from American special Middle East envoy James Wolfensohn that it was being too strict with its closures of border crossings. The shortsightedness of such calls is as painful as it is predictable.

As Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev told The Washington Post: "If Israel tomorrow allowed unimpeded passage at the crossings, I think everyone believes that would have negative consequences all around. There would likely be a series of suicide bombings and we would have to respond." Now that there has been a bombing Israel indeed may respond. More broadly, the basic truth must be constantly restated and implemented because it is constantly forgotten: If the Palestinians do not combat terrorism from their midst, Israel must. Jerusalem Post

So, President Bush lay off Israel. Go to the root of the problem, the PA, Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, the PLO, and all other terrorist groups that currently exist in Gaza and the Palestinian areas of the West Bank. The US does not tolerate terrorist attacks on her. Israel has the same right and duty to protect her citizens. And until the PA can rein the terrorists in it's midst, Israel is justified in taking those measures that are necessary to protect her citizens.


Blogger patrickafir said...

Yeah, it's been a major madman's tango between the White House and the State Department for quite some time (before Bush). It always gets on my nerves too how we sometimes put Israel on the same moral level as the PA—it's a crummy way to show ones appreciation of a friend. President Bush is at the high end in his treatment of Israel too. He refused to deal with Arafat, he's continually declined condemning Israel for taking out Palestinian Arab Islamic terrorists, and he's steadfastly promoted the idea of democracy in the PA.

All that being said, like every other president before him, since at least the mid-sixties, he's allowed Arab opinion—especially that of Saudi Arabia—to sway him too much.

I've got plenty of complaints about the Bush administration, and I'm glad to not be trapped in the myopic view of the partisan ideologue, and I'm grateful to live in a nation where criticism keeps democracy robust.

4:24 PM  
Anonymous seawitch said...


President Bush has done a lot for Israel. But lately the rhetoric coming from the Secretary of State Rice and from Wolfensohn is asking Israel to deal with terrorism in a way which would be clearly unthinkable in the US. I still admire Bush but no more double standards for our friends.

4:32 PM  
Anonymous Felis said...

A firm action in support of Israel and directed against the palestinian cutthroats would additionally help the fight against terror.
Until a strong action is taken by the US all other terrorist scumbags will get encouraged in pursuing their dirty objectives.

4:41 PM  
Anonymous seawitch said...


Well said and my point. We can't keep asking israel to relax it's borders for humanitiarian reasons while there are scores and scores of rabid terrorists intent on killing Israeli citizens.

4:52 PM  
Blogger Daniel in Brookline said...

I agree completely. I long for the day when an Israeli spokesman or politician, attending a press conference in the United States, is asked about further "concessions for peace"... and responds, on camera, by explaining graphically just what such concessions would mean for Israel, and asks the journalists: would you make such idiotic concessions against such a bloodthirsty enemy?

Israel is not just an ideological fellow-traveller of the United States. Israel has been a true friend of the US, offering help and advice that no one else could. I'd like to see Israel treated more as a friend, and less like the embarrassing crazy aunt you try to pretend doesn't exist.

seawitch -- many thanks for the link!

Daniel in Brookline

5:48 PM  
Anonymous seawitch said...


It would be interesting if a diplomat responded that way. Israel has been one of the truest friends this country has had and as you said needs to be treated as a friend.

You're welcome about the link. You have many thought provoking posts that are well written.

6:06 PM  
Blogger Esther said...

Well said everyone. I am often disgusted with how the State Dept treats Israel. They are such whores to Arab oil nations. We constantly ask them to make concessions that we damn well know we'd never make.

11:09 AM  
Anonymous seawitch said...


That's what makes me so mad. Especially Special Envoy Wolfensohn.

4:04 PM  
Blogger GunnNutt said...

I think the State Dept. has been badly serving this country for decades. The "can't we all just get along?" philosophy is so firmly entrenched within the career diplomatic corps that they feel the need to sabatage anything that disrupts their carefully constructed world view.

7:14 PM  
Anonymous seawitch said...


I agree and it's absurd the power the State Dept. has. It's almost like a seperate branch of the government that has no checks and balances in place.

8:04 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home