Seriously. If you’re Israel, what ARE you going to do? What should you do?
You try playing nice with the terrorists on both sides of you. You pull out of southern Lebanon. You pull out of Gaza. What does this cause the wackos to think? Why, they say that they forced you out. They say that obviously, terrorism is the way to go. So they keep doing it.
So you get fed up and you go into Gaza with overwhelming force. And before you’re done there, Hezbollah hits you in the north, and you go back into Lebanon with overwhelming force. At this point, the wackos conclude what? Well, it’s rather soon to tell, but I sort of doubt they’re going to think the way reasonable people do and say, "Hey, this terrorist thing isn’t working for us; maybe we’d better stop."
The point for them isn’t so much that it works or doesn’t work. It’s what they do. They’re especially into killing Jews, maybe even more than killing Americans. And for Lebanese and Palestinian wackos, it’s so much trouble to trek all the way to Iraq to kill Americans when the Jews are so handy.
The point for them is that they don’t want to get along with Israel. They want Israel to be gone.
So if you’re Israel, and you have this perfectly natural desire to continue existing, what are you going to do?
Whatever you do, many more will die.
Related Posts
It’s not a question of Israel “playing nice with the terrorists on both sides,” it’s a question of how do you strengthen the moderate Palestinian wing? Olmert wanted to establish his hawkish side, maybe he’s positioning himself to move on the diplomatic wing.
All sides need inspired leadership now, but sadly, none seems to be forthcoming.
It seems tragic that this escalation has happened just as Hamas seemed to come into accord with Abbas’ wing on implicit recognition of Israel’s right to exist. Could there have been a different way to play this? I don’t know.
Bush will figure it out. He’s already got Iraq, Iran, and North Korea under control.
Freedom on the march! All we gotta do is WORK HARD and STAY THE COURSE!
That being said, can someone smarter than me speculate on what might happen if this escalates? What would have to happen for the U.S. military to be brought into the picture?
Another related question – can Israel take on Iran militarily without assistance?
Doug, the queasy feeling one gets about the escalation here is depressingly summarized in a blog post today by Andrew Sullivan.
Phillip,
Thanks for the pointer. There’s another entry titled “Summer in Baghdad” today on Sullivan’s blog that should be required reading for all the “STAY THE COURSE” sect… it’s a first hand account of what day to day life is like in Baghdad. It’s bad and getting worse.
Another related question – can Israel take on Iran militarily without assistance?
Posted by: Doug
Well, we’re conveniently in the neighborhood if they need a hand.
Phillip: “it’s a question of how do you strengthen the moderate Palestinian wing?”
Given that the Palestinian crazies kill off all the moderates who have the extreme courage to speak up, the only remaining option would seem to be to kill all the crazies, extremists, militants or whatever else they want to call themselves. Once you have a society so thoroughly dominated by the wackos, there is no normal way to strengthen the moderates. Campaign contributions or UN resolutions won’t work.
Doug: “What would have to happen for the U.S. military to be brought into the picture?”
I don’t see us intervening unless Israel is in serious danger of losing or once we decide to make a move on Syria or Iran. IMO what we’re seeing so far is the US and other countries giving Israel a free hand to do what needed doing for a long time.
That Iraqi blog linked to in “Summer in Baghdad” provides the predictable anti-American, defeatist stuff you would expect from a blog which has these as the first 8 entries on its blog roll:
BBC News
New York Times
AlterNet
Al-Jazeera in English
News for Nerds
Iraq Today
Iraq Occupation Watch
Iraq Body Count
Now I can always see the need for keeping up with what our enemies are saying and doing but I certainly wouldn’t expect an impartial report from that blog. Would you?
Here’s a very interesting article about the current situation.
Here’s a great piece about the then-upcoming war and the situation at the Israel-Lebanon border a couple or three months ago. Make sure to check out Part 2 as well.
Not surprising. The Muslim fanatics launch aggression against Israel and it’s immediately Bush’s fault. I guess if Iran manages to blow up Tel Aviv it’s also Bush’s fault. Very predictable – the Bush haters carry on.
So Iran pours 60,000 “operatives” into Lebanon to fulfill the predictions of its lunatic president. Meanwhile, back in the good ole USA, we have the “Enemy Within” who think that if we simply abandon Iraq, let the fanatics annihilate Israel like they plan to do, then from then on the fanatical Muslims will simply leave the US alone. Pretty soon, expect the UN to issue a proclamation denouncing Israeli violence. The UN is useless, as usual.
Dave,
So can I assume that you believe that the U.S. will need to increase its presence in the Middle East over the next few years?
Will troops be shifted from Iraq or will we require additional callups? I don’t doubt that we have the military power to defeat anyone but then we have to deal with the consequences. It will be a real mess for decades.
Bush has to shoulder some of the blame for increased tensions over there. When you attempt to forcefeed democracy on people who don’t want it, there’s got to be some backlash. Sort of like the “We don’t care how you did it up north” attitude you see from the Good Old Boys in South Carolina.
They’d rather be wrong than accept change.
Lex,
I read articles that present both sides of the situation in Iraq and assume that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. You immediately discount a first hand account through “guilt by association” yet don’t dispute the details of the account.
Are you claiming that all those details are lies?
LexWolf: “the only remaining option would seem to be to kill all the crazies, extremists, militants or whatever else they want to call themselves.” Problem is that there is not a fixed number of terrorists. Even if all those now existing could be killed immediately (which of course is probably impossible), the extremity of action needed to accomplish such a goal would naturally create more. Your proposed option sounds good in theory but such solutions have never been shown to work in practice.
Dave, at the time you posted your message, nobody had said it was Bush’s fault that Muslims took aggressive actions against Israel. By the way, many Palestinians are Christians, Dave. They’re not all Muslims.
Again, I have to ask: are the lives of innocent Palestinians killed by these Israeli strikes less valuable than the innocent Israeli lives that have been lost? Is this really the solution?
Phillip, you sound just like the UN: this won’t work and that won’t work and the other won’t work either and that next one really won’t work. All while keeping their thumbs stuck up something and while people in the real world actually do something about the problem.
What would be your solution? Come now, none of that palavering at the UN and elsewhere that has only made things worse for the past 58 years. Some real solutions, if you please!
Doug, war is not nice and stuff happens in war. I’m not saying that “something” didn’t happen but given that blog’s tendencies I’m not at all convinced that it happened the way the blog describes it. I’ve seen too many stories from that region, both in blogs and in the drive-by media, that turned out to be completely different from what actually happened. People there all have an agenda and it’s very naive to just lap it all up.
Lex,
Let us know when you plan to vacation in Baghdad. I hear there’s plenty of availability at the Hilton. Kevlar is
all the rage at the local bars.
Sort of like the “We don’t care how you did it up north” attitude you see from the Good Old Boys in South Carolina.
They’d rather be wrong than accept change.
Posted by: Doug | Jul 14, 2006 4:47:31 AM
Doug, that’s a false analogy, and you know it. If northerners were gifting us with any lost knowledge, whatever problems you nasal-whine incessantes perceived to be present in the Beautiful South would be repaired by now. N’est-ce pas?
Promethians you aren’t.
A more apt analogy would be that those who have a problem with an area or state should pull out and stick to inhabiting a place where they (one surmises from the rampantly registered complaints) were happier initially.
We can take to the skies and seas to return our armed forces home, where they should be. You can head up I-95.
The solution is so simple as you and I have been over this before.
(Geez, just when I was altering my whole nationview concerning the northeast after a NYC trip that went swimmingly.)
A,
My analogy was related the futility of trying to impose one’s culture/belief system/politics on a group of people who are uninterested in accepting it. Democracy would seem to work best when it is gained through one’s own efforts, not by decree from an outside entity. That’s why I have little hope for the type of Iraq that the rose colored neocons think they can create.
I didn’t think I was compaining about South Carolina. I choose to live here and nowhere else. Been here 16 years and I’ve said “Well, back in Massachusetts, we did it this way” only related to one topic: the
depressing lack of vocational high schools. Done right, it would be a great benefit to the educational system. It’s one thing us Yankees have done right.
The twentieth century before the United Nations: Two World Wars (the second culminating in the use of two nuclear weapons) a Holocaust with 6 million Jews killed, and the millions killed in the Stalinist purges.
The twentieth century since the United Nations: no world wars, no single use of a nuclear weapon, Central and Western Europe free of warfare between nations for probably the longest stretch in hundreds and hundreds of years.
“that palavering at the UN and elsewhere that has only made things worse for the past 58 years.” Even acknowledging the flaws of the UN (which are many) and the seeming futility of many protracted searches for diplomatic solutions, the world without the UN would be a more threatening scenario.
LW, to paraphrase your President, diplomacy is “hard work.” A lot of ideas don’t work. A lot of initiatives go nowhere. But when we’re talking about the conditions for WWIII here, I think it’s imperative that the US get heavily involved diplomatically and put heavy pressure on states that might be traditionally more friendly to the Palestinians to do the same.
Ironically, it was a UN decision–the 1947 plan to partition Palestine—that has turned out to be the most intractable problem of all in the world since the second world war.
Real solutions? If I could come up with those, I’d be Secretary of State instead of that other piano player. How about you, LexWolf? Lay out your “real world” solutions for us. I’d be interested to read them.
“The twentieth century since the United Nations: no world wars, no single use of a nuclear weapon, Central and Western Europe free of warfare between nations”
Are you actually suggesting that the UN deserves credit for these? Could you explain exactly what the UN did to deserve this credit? Personally I can’t think of a single situation where the UN made anything better. Almost always the UN yakks on endlessly but nothing gets done until and unless the US steps in. Just look at Darfur or the Congo for current examples.
“the world without the UN would be a more threatening scenario”
I strongly disagree. Tell me one situation the UN diffused. They may kick a problem down the road a few years sometimes but sooner or later conflict erupts anyway. Then the delay usually makes that conflict worse than it would have been otherwise because both sides use the delay to build up and reinforce their forces.
“LW, to paraphrase your President” (emphasis added)
Aaah, now we’re getting to the truth finally. What do you mean, “my” President? Since you are a self-proclaimed (but very unconvincing) Republican, shouldn’t he be “your” President also? Thank you for finally showing your true liberal colors. (BTW, there is no surer clue to recognize a liberal than when that person claims 3 times in just 2 posts to be a Republican!)
Um, earth to Lex, come in please. Are you talking about me? I’d like to see where I claimed to be a Republican.
For the record, I can only remember voting for 2 Republicans in my life. Charles Mathias for Senator in Maryland in 1980, and Rudy Giuliani for NYC mayor the second time he ran in 1993 against Dinkins. You must have me confused with somebody else here on the blog.
Again, LW, the only future hope for the world lies in strengthening and improving international and multilateral institutions. This is the only option ultimately available to human beings. The differences between human beings around world are minuscule compared to the similarities and commonalities. Increasingly, the planet faces profound challenges that can ONLY be met by international cooperation.
The UN is a young institution. Something like that has never been tried in world history. In the long run, that gives me hope.
Doug, how is allowing the Iraqis to create their own constitution, elect their own representatives, and their own leaders an example of force feeding democracy? You would be right if Bremer had declared, OK, the US pronounces this a democracy effective immediately, and so and so is now the Prime Minister etc. We havent force fed anything.
Sorry, I mislinked above. Here is the link I was trying to make.
BTW LexWolf, “palaver” is a good word. Never really knew what that meant but it’s a useful word to know. Thanks.
Dave,
I guess all the bombs were just to celebrate Iraqi Independence Day, right?
Do you seriously believe the U.S. has not been involved every step of the way since the Saddam was ousted? I’m still struggling with the concept of the Iraqis viewing us as benevolent liberators…
. 9-11
. Iraq quagmire
. North Korean Missles
. Iran developing Nukes
. Isreal at odds with Hezbolah and others
. $76 + price for oil
. Increased murder rate
. Traffic fatality rate up for 1st time since 1986
. Record budget deficits
. Declining wages
. Negative savings rate
. Huge Recession followed by …
. Very weak recovery
. Stagnant stock market
It just keeps getting better with W.
Heh. That’s why W decided not to run for re-election.
But seriously, planning for 9/11 started 2 years earlier while Clinton was still in charge. In fact, his administration was warned about Mohammed Atta through a program called Able Danger. Instead of breaking up the terrorist cell, the Clintonistas disbanded Able Danger.
Contrary to conventional wisdom Iraq is going very well. It is now the only democracy in the Middle East, aside from Israel and Lebanon, and has had positive effects throughout the region.
North Korea and Iran were developing nukes long before W ever became President.
Israel has been at odds with Hezbollah and its ilk since 1948. Nothing new there.
Does Bush set the oil price? What do you recommend we do about it? The obvious solutions (nuclear power, more drilling, more refineries) are all vociferously opposed by you liberals. In fact, your side is far more responsible for getting us into this dependence on foreign energy than W is.
Did Bush pull the trigger in those murders?
Did Bush drive the vehicles which collided with fatal results? Does he control traffic laws and police enforcement?
The budget deficits are historically average, measured as a percentage of the GDP.
The savings rate is meaningless because it specifically excludes most of what people would clearly consider savings, i.e. part of their net worth. For example, buying a house is considered consumption, not savings, even though real estate has historically appreciated over time, and you can normally get back at least your purchase price if you sell. Gains on stocks also don’t count even though the government will gladly takes its cut. Read this article for the real facts.
The actually very minor recession started in Clinton’s final year. It was inherited by W and was further compounded by 9/11.
The recovery has been splendid since Bush’s tax cuts passed in 1993. We have now had 18 months of uninterrupted growth, with an average 4% quarterly growth rate.
Given the inherited recession, 9/11, 2 wars, the cleanup of Clinton’s corporate scandals, and the high oil prices, it’s amazing that stocks are as high as they are.
Phillip, you’re right. I did have you confused with someone else. My bad. However, at least it’s now clear that you’re on the liberal side.
Sorry, but the UN is not the first such institution. The League Of Nations was established after WW1 but collapsed before WW2 due to its incompetence, corruption and uselessness. The UN has survived a little longer (mainly because the US has been propping it up) but will also collapse eventually, for the same reasons. By all means, keep on hoping but it will never be more than a useless debating society.
Bud, for forgot to list Hurricane Katrina on that list of downers. Funny downers though,like stagnant stock market. My stocks are way up, which ones did you buy that are stagnant? Deficit is dropping to lowest level in many years. Wealthy are paying way more taxes under Bush than under Clinton, 40% more in fact.
Doug, the US has been involved every step of the way. When you conquer an existing regime, you get that right to guide the process. Better us than the French. Everyone, conservatives and liberals, wants out of Iraq, but liberals want to walk away as losers, and the US cannot afford that. If we do, we will pay for it later on our home soil.
To answer Brad’s question, “What are you going to do?” is not really a question Americans should be concerned with. There are plenty of crazies, wackos etc. in the middle east and not all are Muslum. The Isrealies clearly over-reacted to a couple of soldier kidnappings. Why bomb Lebanon’s airport? Does anyone have any proof that Lebanon was responsible for the soldier’s kidnappings? Many children die because of Isreal’s ham-handed approach to dealing with the radical elements in the middle-east.
The Bush approach is clearly not working. The master plan was to free Iraq from the tyranny of Saddam which would in turn lead to a free and prosperous Iraq. This was suppossed to somehow isolate Iran’s fundamentalist government and allow moderate factions an opportunity to gain control. The Bush approach was summarized with the expression, “Freedom is on the March”.
Well, freedom (in the middle-east) is on the march over a cliff. The Iraq quagmire is spiralling out of control as the U.S. very quitely begins to withdraw. Only the very far-right wingnuts continue to claim things are going well. It really is a complete disaster, probably far worse than the MSM make it look.
Iran of course is well on it’s way to joining the nuclear family. There did seem to be some progress between Isreal and the Palestinians but that opportunity was shattered this week.
Since the Bush adminstration is so incompetent at diplomacy I say let’s just withdraw totally from the middle-east for the next 3 years. Perhaps with American troops gone things will settle down a bit and we can start over with a real president in 2009.
Bud, many of the Lebanese hate Hezbollah and Hamas. They will welcome Israel disarming one or both of these terrorist groups. Do you think Israel over-reacted to the 200 to 300 missiles launched into Haifa and other places?
Isn’t the Democratic party wonderful? Now they are using photos of American soldiers killed in action to raise funds. Even Spratt is ashamed to be seen with the Dem leaders. I have to give Spratt credit for condemning that. The real wackos are running and ruining the Democratic party.
The republicans wrapped themselves in the 9-11 hype for political purposes. And of course there was Willie Horton, the Swift-Boat liars, the outrageous attacks against Max Cleland and now Jack Murtha. Conservative “celebrities” like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter will say anything, no matter how outrageous to attack liberals.
Both sides stoop pretty low when it comes to politics. But the republicans are far worse. And besides, shouldn’t the public know the horrible truth about the war they’re asked to pay for? Personally, I wouldn’t have used the dead soldier photos but at least they are an authentic representation of what’s going on as a result of their government’s decisions.
The Democrats were stupid to nominate Kerry without checking out his lousy military record. They are so out of touch with America that they thought Kerry’s military record would appeal to the majority, even though most Democrats found it distasteful. They could tolerate it because Kerry had repented and become a leader in the anti-war movement, financed by $2,000,000 of KGB money.
Then Kerry refused to turn over his records or anything that would defend him against the facts coming out about his miniscule combat experiences and trumped up medals, including Purple Hearts for wounds never treated.
America is so thankful to not have Gore or Kerry hiding under the desk in the Oval Office today.
Guess who the first person (campaign) to use the Willie Horton episode. You are correct if you said Algore. He exposed Dukakis’s weakness on crime. Max Cleland, who I would honor for serving the nation, was on a helicopter beer run, goofing off with a live grenade, which he dropped, blowing both of his legs off. Honor his service but he was not and is NOT a war hero. Gimme a break Bud. I bet if you sat down face to face with the Swift Boaters that you would believe them. Some of them were democrats. Can you even believe that Kerry took a video camera with him and recreated his war scenes in Vietnam? How may Viet veterans went to that extreme to get ready for a political career? But, the SWBVFT won, I contributed to their cause. These are honorable, no, great men of conscience. Kerry still has not released his Form 180 Mil records. He was a traitor to this nation. But he does have an appetite for rich widows, oui?
No Dave (whoever you are), Kerry isn’t a traitor. Unlike the hordes of draft dodgers and cowards, he did his duty for his country. He didn’t get constant deferments or use his daddy’s influence to get him of the hook. He didn’t apply for a questionable 4F status or go AWOL in the National Guard either. At least Kerry uses his complete name when he makes public statements, unlike the cowards who hide behind anonymity to make their unwarranted, baseless attacks on those who actually have served the country. Maybe you should take a cue from Kerry and try using you real, complete name as your first step to becoming a man.
Mark, you are correct. Kerry DID serve in Vietnam, 120 days, and 3 paper cuts later, he used self service priveleged wealthy lawyer processing for his self nominated purple hearts, abandoned his boat crew to stay in Vietnam to fight, and then came home to begin work with our enemies to undermine the military. Interesting that he continues doing it now. And while W has released ALL medical records, indicating he never had a cocaine issue, Kerry refuses to release his even after promising on national TV to release them. He’s a gigolo joke.
Dave you need to listen to someone other than Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. The ‘Al Gore first used Willie Horton’ claim has long ago been discredited. Gore never did any such thing. The Horton ad was a shameless attack piece first trumped up by Lee Atwater (who in his dying days appologized for his smear tactics). The slanderous ‘beer run’ smear against Cleland was something the disgusting Ann Coultergiest dreamed up in her right-wing fantasy mind.
Everyone on the right who supports the swiftboat liars is in effect smearing the U.S. military. It was the Navy that gave Kerry his medals, not John Kerry. Shame on you for undermining our military during a time of war. The real ‘hide under the desk’ cowards are the chickenhawk leaders running the white house. Not one of the civilians in charge of our military has ever heard a shot fired in anger.
None of the above would matter if we had a competent foreign policy. After all, Bill Clinton never served and look at how effective his foreign policy efforts were. When he left office the world was more peaceful than at any time in history. Now there was a real president. Let’s return a Clinton to the White House in 2008 and bring some of that positive foreign policy magic back.
Bud, I don’t see any quotes from Rush or Coulter below:
“Al Gore’s mean streak was not engineered by [adviser] Bob Shrum…In his failed 1988 campaign for president, Gore nailed Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis for the Willie Horton affair long before George Bush Sr. took up that cry.” Robert Novak, Washington Post, 10/22/99
****************************************
Read this about Cleland. And remember, Georgia voters had the last word on Cleland, and removed him because he voted against the Homeland Security bill 11 times.
******************************************
This terrible accident happened not on a battlefield but on a helicopter pad 15 miles away from combat. Cleland stepped out of a helicopter to go have a beer with buddies, saw a hand grenade on the ground, assumed that he had dropped it and picked the explosive device up. It had been dropped by another, inexperienced soldier who had left the weapon on a hair trigger setting. It detonated, devastating Cleland’s 25-year-old body and in an instant changing his life.
In the 1986 edition of his autobiography Strong at the Broken Places, Cleland wrote of his receiving the Soldier’s Medal “for allegedly shielding my men from the grenade blast and the Silver Star for allegedly coming to the aid of wounded troops….”
“There were no heroics on which to base the Soldier’s Medal,” wrote Cleland on page 87. “And it had been my men who took care of the wounded during the rocket attack, not me. Some compassionate military men had obviously recommended me for the Silver Star, but I didn’t deserve it.” (Emphasis added.) Two pages later he added: “I was not entitled to the Purple Heart either, since I was not wounded by enemy action.” (Emphasis added.)
“One thing we know about this White House is that it plays for keeps. Recall that the candidate who first raised the prison furlough (Willie Horton) issue against Mike Dukakis in 1988 wasn’t George Bush. It was Al Gore.” Paul Gigot, Wall Street Journal, 10/29/99
“Big Al can be a tough, mean player, not afraid to be tough and inaccurate himself. After all, he’s the guy who introduced Willie Horton to the American public in his primary campaign against Michael Dukakis.” William Kristol, Newsweek, 11/1/99
“Al Gore does use fear. Remember 1988, it was Al Gore when he was running in the primaries for president who found Willie Horton, and he used Willie Horton against Dukakis.” Sam Donaldson, This Week, 11/28/99
“Mr. Gore has never been reluctant to go for the jugular. During the 1988 presidential campaign, Mr. Gore was the first candidate to raise the Massachusetts prison furlough program and Willie Horton issue against fellow Democrat Michael Dukakis.” Andrew Cain, Washington Times, 12/7/99
“Gore prefers the cut-and-thrust of traditional politics and has often defined himself by criticizing his opponents. It was Gore, after all, who in 1988 introduced Willie Horton into the presidential campaign.” Dan Balz, Washington Post, 12/20/99
There you go with your undeniable facts again, Dave. Couldn’t you have left Mark W. and Bud with their illusions?
The attacks against Cleland were truly disgusting. Coulter has frequently used that line of attack in the past to blast the left. It is simply disgusting. Everyone on the right should be ashamed of those attacks. Clelan served in Nam. It sounds like to me Cleland’s account of the matter is an honest and forthright admission of the events that transpired. He’s never claimed to be a hero, BUT HE DID SERVE his country honorably. Your guy Bush, the coward that he is, did not even get his physical to requalify as a pilot.
As for the Gore and the Willie Horton issue, Gore did make a casual mention of the prison furlough system in the 1988 primary race but the Willie Horton attack ads were engineered by Lee Atwater. Paul Gigot, Bill Kristol, Sam Donaldson, Andrew Cain and Dan Balz were all incorrect. Gore never mentioned Willie Horton. That’s just a right-wing urban myth that’s been perpetuated by Rush and others through the years.
Here’s the truth on this matter (from Wikepedia, not Rush Limbaugh):
There is some disagreement about whether the Republicans first brought up Willie Horton in the campaign, or whether in fact Al Gore did. Some believe that Horton’s name first surfaced during the general election. They say that Senator Al Gore raised only the general issue of the furlough program during the 1988 Democratic presidential primary. In June of 1988, after Dukakis had clinched the Democratic Party nomination, Republican candidate George H.W. Bush seized on the Horton case, bringing it up repeatedly in campaign speeches. Bush’s campaign manager, Lee Atwater, bragged that “by the time this election is over, Willie Horton will be a household name.” [1] Media consultant Roger Ailes was reported to remark “the only question is whether we depict Willie Horton with a knife in his hand or without it.”
Another view is that Al Gore did indeed bring up Willie Horton in the primary campaign. Several journalists have presented this view – though some sources, such as Novak, Gigot, Kristol and the Washington Times have strong ties to the conservative movement – but there is no hard evidence such as transcripts or position papers in which Gore mentioned Horton specifically in the context of criticizing the furlough program in general.
What is known for sure regarding Gore is that during a debate at the Felt Forum sponsored by the New York Daily News, Gore took issue with the furlough program. He did not, however, mention Horton by name. He asked it in the form of a rhetorical question, asking Dukakis whether or not he would extend Massachusetts-style furloughs to the federal level. Dukakis’ retort was, “The difference between you and me is that I have run a criminal justice system. You haven’t.” But Dukakis also quickly noted that the furlough program had been changed. (This can be found in “Whose Broad Stripes And Bright Stars?” by Jack Germond and Jules Witcover on page 315).
To this day, no one has found any quoted interview or recording showing Al Gore mentioning Willie Horton’s name during the 1988 primary campaign.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE GORE MENTIONED WILLIE HORTON BY NAME, period. The only thing this issue proves is that the whole notion of a liberal bias in the MSM is pure rubbish. For so many people to believe something that is simply not true confirms just the opposite, the media has a very conservative slant.
Here’s the Atwater connection to Willie Horton. Atwater made these racist comments in a campaign swing through the south. This is just good ole fear based, republican politics. The neo-cons are using the same scare tactics today with the war on terrorism:
ATWATER: There is a story about a fellow named Willie Horton who for all I know may end up to be Dukakis’ running mate. Dukakis is making Hamlet look like the rock of Gibraltar in the way he’s acted on this. [This was a reference to Dukakis’ search for a vice-presidential candidate.] The guy was on TV about a month ago and he said you’ll never see me standing in the driveway of my house talking to these candidates. And guess what, on Monday, I saw in the driveway of his house? Jesse Jackson. So anyway, maybe he’ll put this Willie Horton guy on the ticket after all is said and done.
Check out this great book from very liberal Alexander Cockburn.
What sort of a man is Al Gore? What’s his real political record? This is the first unsparing look at the man whom his parents raised from birth to be president of the United States. Inside these pages, you will find:
* How Al Gore and his father got on the payroll of one of America’s most ruthless tycoons, Armand Hammer
* How Al Gore has relentlessly exploited his sister’s death and son’s accident for personal political advantage
* How Al Gore violated the most basic journalistic ethics by helping the cops run a sting operation on a black politician in Nashville
* How Al Gore played midwife to the MX missile
* How Al Gore became a soul brother of Newt Gingrich
* How Al Gore race-baited Jesse Jackson and introduced George Bush to Willie Horton
* How Al Gore shopped his vote in support of the Gulf War to get prime-time coverage for his speech
* How Al Gore pushed Clinton into destroying the New Deal
* How Al Gore plotted to stop Democrats from recapturing Congress in 1996 in order to keep his rival Dick Gephard from becoming Speaker of the House
* How Al Gore leached campaign from nearly every corporate lobbyist in DC, and broke pledge after pledge to protect the environment
Here are a bunch of unflattering reviews of your hero at a far left website
Bud, such nuance, and you quote Wikipedia, a source from which anyone anywhere can post whatever they think on a subject, as your gospel base. Lexwolf and I quoted and referenced real people and real events. Face the facts.
Fact: There is no evidence, NONE, that Al Gore mentioned Willie Horton by name in the 1988 presidential campaign. No matter how many articles or books that are written repeating the original lie it can’t change the truth. No matter how many times you repeat a lie, IT’S STILL A LIE. The right uses this lie, lie, lie tactic very effectively to pursuade people something false is actually true. Eventually the original lie is accepted as truth. The Willie Horton incident is a great example of this. Gore never mentioned Willie Horton (only the broader furlough issue, which incidently Dukakis repealed). The republicans seize the opportunity to use the furlough issue with some racist embellishment, including the introduction of WILLIE HORTON. After the successful smear campaign runs it’s course and they’re called on it they begin a campaign to lie about the original source of the campaign.
The Republicans (Lee Atwater specifically, who later recanted many of his smear tactics) saw an opportunity to use fear tactics to win an election. The savage, distorted attacks against Al Gore in 2000 represent the nadir in American politics. The media was so caught up in this that I actually bought into it and voted for Ralph Nader (now there’s an appropriate name). In the meantime Bush’s various indiscretions (including his drunk driving incident, indifferent national guard service, probable insider trading episode, failed business ventures) were largely ignored by the MSM. The whole “invented the internet” thing, the “Earth Tones” nonsense. All of it was disgraceful. And it all completely destroys the phoney liberal mainstream media myth that so many hapless Americans buy into.
“Fact: There is no evidence, NONE, that Al Gore mentioned Willie Horton by name in the 1988 presidential campaign”
Gotta love ya, Bud, in your slavish devotion to Papa Al.
I don’t remember whether Gore ever actually said Horton’s name himself or not. However that may be, you will have to admit that the consensus even amongst far Lefties is that Gore was the originator of this attack. Now if Gore didn’t personally mention Horton, yet the word got around anyway, what does this tell us? Quite simply that Gore once again didn’t have the guts to stand behind what he was doing or saying. Instead he hid behind underlings and got them to spread the innuendo through a whisper campaign.
Bush Sr. on the other hand had the cojones to openly make a very necessary point about Dukakis’ feckless stand on crime.
I’m sure you’ll disagree but I submit to you that Bush Sr is far more honest and honorable than Gore would ever be, even if Al had an “honor transplant” done. The guy is an embarrassment and a disgrace.
Yup, Mr. “Read my Lips” is as honest as they come.
Heh. That’s exactly why Dems can’t be trusted with anything. On one hand, you were yelling and screaming for tax increases back then while Bush correctly refused to agree with you. Then when Bush Sr finally tried to compromise with you, you then turn right around and complain about that, too.
Iran is focusing on arming and pushing Hezbollah to attack Israel because they are having so little success in Iraq. The last report from Iraq shows we are sealing the borders and containing things to an internal struggle, with only 2% of terrorists killed or captured being non-Iraqis.
In fact, things in Iraq are becoming so good that even the Sunni want us to STAY!!
I wonder if they’re singing the Mr. Rogers theme song in Baghdad today, Lex?
>A suicide car bomber detonated explosives
> in a crowd of laborers gathered across
> the street from a major Shiite shrine in
> southern Iraq Tuesday, killing at least
> 53 people and
>wounding 105, officials and witnesses said
They want us to stay because if we don’t, it’s going to be even worse than it is now.
Doug, it really doesn’t matter how disasterous things get in Iraq, the far-right “don’t cut and run” crowd will somehow how find the microscopic silver lining. I’ve consistently favored withdrawing from this horrible quagmire immediately. With the latest round of fighting between Isreal and the Hez and Ham crowd the last possible justification for remaining is gone. We are clearly making the area less, not more stable.
We are in Iraq to make America more stable, by putting Saddam’s WMD and terrorist training camps out of commission.
Democrats have no solution but to remain at home, go to the mall, watch TV and hope the next attack kills conservatives. They lacked the courage to do anything from 1993-2000, leaving a big mess to now clean up.
Lee,
Would we be in the mess we are in now had George Bush #1 finished the job in the Gulf War? That war was just another photo op for his re-election campaign. Too bad he didn’t have the same quality partisan hachet men that his son has.
Guess who said this?
>And the question in my mind is, how many
>additional American casualties is Saddam
>(Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not
>that damned many. So, I think we got it
>right, both when we decided to expel him
>from Kuwait, but also when the President
>made the decision that we’d achieved our
>objectives and we were not going to go get
>bogged down in the problems of trying to
>take over and govern Iraq.
A hint – you wouldn’t want to be standing near him during a quail hunt. Especially when both he AND the shotgun are loaded…
Another hint – he was too busy to serve in Vietnam.
Stability is not desirable when the status quo is not acceptable. Massive change is appropriate in that case, and that’s what we’re seeing.
The neo-cons are all over the map on the middle-east situation. First we need to invade Iraq because of an urgent and immediate security threat. Then it’s an issue of spreading democracy throughout the region. Then we want a stable middle-east. Then we just want to keep the people of Iraq safe from the evils of a madman. Now it’s ok to have an unstable middle-east because the status quo is so horrible. So what is it? Security? Altruism? Stability? Freedom? Democracy? Creation of an omelette? (Remember the old saying, in order to create an omelette you have to break a few eggs).
I guess we’re creating a sort of Judeo/Christian western-style omelette in the middle-east but we must first break a considerable number of eggs to get there.
This is truly the most bizarre episode in American history. Never has any foreign policy been such a complete and utter disaster but continues to have support from a large segment of the population. It is simply incomprehensible.
Bud,
It has support from a large segment of the population because a large segment of the population is basically ignorant and blinded by jingoistic patriotism. They rely on slogans like “mission accomplished” and “stay the course” and “hard work” coming from people who ironically have never worked a hard day in their lives.
We’re supposed to be a Christian nation… but we treat the deaths of innocent women and children as simply collateral damage
in the neverending battle for truth, justice, and the Halliburton way.
Meanwhile, Democratic politicians are no better off as they only care about getting re-elected. It’s all about greed and power on both sides.
I’m praying for a third party candidate in 2008. Not expecting it, but praying for it.
“First we need to invade Iraq because of an urgent and immediate security threat. Then it’s an issue of spreading democracy throughout the region. Then we want a stable middle-east. Then we just want to keep the people of Iraq safe from the evils of a madman. Now it’s ok to have an unstable middle-east because the status quo is so horrible. So what is it? Security? Altruism? Stability? Freedom? Democracy?”
Heh. Actually it’s all of the above, Bud, but not necessarily all at the same time. You need to engage in a little nuanced thinking here, Bud. Maybe not your strong suit?
Doug, now someone cannot change their mind 15 years later. You have to be kidding. Anyway, Saddam evolved into a more dangerous creature so he had to be taken out. By the way, Cheney put in his military service by serving the US government as Defense Chief and VP. Not many people have served the nation so honorably. Give the guy some credit. If he had a good ticker, you would be calling him Prez in 08.
Also, have you forgotten about our 3000 dead from 9-11? The scum who did that are paying the price, one by one. And rightfully so.
>Also, have you forgotten about our 3000 >dead from 9-11? The scum who did that are >paying the price, one by one. And >rightfully so.
First, the “scum” who were responsible for 9-11 were not Iraqi’s, they were Saudi’s. I would have hoped that the Republican Kool Aid would have worn off by now.
Second, are you saying that the innocent men, women, and children who have been killed by U.S. bombs and other means since the start of the Iraq War are justifiable deaths? Do you feel any sense of remorse or sadness over those deaths? or is it just American lives we mourn?
Cheney skipped out on Vietnam. He’s all about his own power and greed. More than Bush, I am counting the days when he will be out of office.
Documents and tapes have been found proving Saddam Hussein was supporting and collaborating with Al Qaeda. That justifies anything and everything we have done ten times over. The fact that AQ Saudis, Yemeni, Jordanians, Iranians, Syrians, etc. have poured into Iraq since we overthrew Saddam is actually a plus. We have killed them there. If not, Zarqawi would have been killing Americans here. The coalition military has gone to unheard of lengths to avoid innocent civilian deaths. They can’t eliminate it all. Look for once at the adversary that targets civilians expressly at funerals, schools, markets, or World Trade offices. I hope you can see the difference.
Slick Willie skipped on the military and Nam. Do you despise him also?
In my book, there’s no difference between Clinton, Cheney, Reagan, Bush, Gore, et al.
They are POLITICIANS – thus they are motivated by greed, power, and ego. They each just go about it in different ways. They are willing to compromise their principles if it means getting something in return.
An excellent commentary on the situation in the Middle East by John Derbyshire
Doug, that was an interesting piece. But there are some positives that must be recognized. Iran and Syria, the two last troublemakers in the ME, are now isolated. Look at the countries surrounding them. Then you will begin to understand their utter desparation. ON the US side,, Turkey, Pakistan, India, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi, Kuwait, Israel, Lebanon, Afghan…. All surrounding the 2 hateful evil governments. Their turn is coming and hopefully soon. The Doomsday Machine is at work.
And then it will once again become clear just how misunderestimated Dubya has been.
Reading something from the other side never hurts. This is an open letter to Bush by a Lebanese American, and worth considering:
Doug, you seem to be unaware of a basic fact about the first Gulf War in 1991:
* George Bush put together a coalition which was invited in by the other Arab states on the condition that they would not topple Saddam Hussein if it was avoidable, and that most of the troops would leave as soon as possible. This was agreed to in a UN session.
The only unfinish jobs that G.W. Bush is dealing with are the dereliction of the Clinton administration, as stated by some of its top advisors. Clinton, Les Aspin, Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright, Tony Lake and a host of lesser clowns let Bin Laden run wild for 8 years.
Lee,
So the U.N. did its job? and you supported Bush in that decision?
-dr
Herb, the lesson Israel has learned is there is no peace through appeasement, only peace through strength. The Jews gave up land and bulldozed their own settlements, forcibly removing Jews from their homes, and this is how the Muslims react. And for that Palestinian women who “always” hated terrorists, what a joke that is. That evil witch I bet was in the streets dancing when we got hit with 9-11. You can count on that.
Dave, if I remember correctly, you are an evangelical Christian. You ought to be listening to some Arab Christians who have a completely different side to the story. Don’t give Israel a free ticket to do what it is doing.
Dave, you’re suggesting there is only peace through strength. It sounds like 1984 newspeak. Why not go all the way and say, there is only peace through war.
Bud, our folks like Dave on the right like to be seen as gun-slingin’ cowboys. Just run in and “shoot-em-up.” There is a myth behind that, that all stories will end with a John Wayne victory, since we are Americans, who fight for truth, justice, and the American way, but we can’t seem to see beyond the myth.
Which makes it sound like I don’t respect our military and the sacrifice they make. Not true. But in our country, the civilians are supposed to be in charge of the military.
Failed to make the connection to Israel in that last post, but it is fairly simple. If you just bring in enough firepower, you can make everybody cower. Works, think many people, whether American or Israeli.
Trouble is, power can also breed more and more resistance. “Shock and awe” isn’t the solution that a lot of people think it is.
Herb, keep in mind that the French, Russians, Chinese and others; i.e. the usual crowd of anti-Israelis, are really keeping pretty quiet while Israel does what it has to do. Also, have you noticed that the Arab street isnt out there by the thousands chanting up and down the streets? Even the Arabs now recognize that if Hezbollah, and Iran and Syria, win, everyone else loses. I see that as a ray of hope for that region, don’t you?