Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

"And the Idiot of Year award goes to..............George "what..who " Bush

Expand Messages
  • whaven69
    I read this editorial bit in the newpaper the Guardian I thought it was just so true......I decided to share In the name of the goddess Devas..I present George
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 26, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      I read this editorial bit in the newpaper the Guardian

      I thought it was just so true......I decided to share

      In the name of the goddess Devas..I present


      George W's bloody folly



      Bush's fantasy Middle East plan is bound to fail. It will strengthen
      those who want war, not peace

      Jonathan Freedland
      Wednesday June 26, 2002
      The Guardian

      That was a fantastic speech. Quite literally, fantastic. George
      Bush's address on the Middle East, delivered outside the White House
      on Monday evening, consisted, from beginning to end, of fantasy.
      It bore so little relation to reality that diplomats around the world
      spent yesterday shaking their heads in disbelief, before sinking into
      gloom and despair. Our own Foreign Office tried gamely to spot the
      odd nugget of sense in the Bush text - but, they admitted, it was an
      uphill struggle. Israelis committed to a political resolution of the
      conflict were heartbroken. Even Shimon Peres, foreign minister in
      Ariel Sharon's coalition, reportedly called the speech "a fatal
      mistake", warning: "A bloodbath can be expected."

      The core of the president's message was that the Palestinians must
      embark on a sweeping process of internal reform before they can even
      think about getting back to the negotiating table. They must
      transform themselves into a democratic market economy, free of
      corruption and with a separate judiciary and legislature if they are
      to be considered eligible for statehood - which, when it comes, will
      be merely provisional.

      Shall we count the ways in which this is completely absurd? George
      Bush is demanding that Palestine become Sweden before it can become
      Palestine: it must be stable, prosperous and boast constitutional
      arrangements which still elude Britain - our judiciary and
      legislature are not separate - let alone the Arab world before it can
      become even a state-in-waiting.

      This would be laughable if Palestine were in tranquil Scandinavia.
      Even there it would count as putting the cart before the horse,
      asking a nation to create the institutions of a highly developed
      country before it becomes a state. But this, remember, is being
      demanded of the Palestinians - statebuilders with every possible
      obstacle in their way.

      Like the fact that they are under military occupation. As the New
      York Times noted yesterday: "How the Palestinians can be expected to
      carry out elections or reform themselves while in a total lockdown by
      the Israeli military remains something of a mystery." Palestinian
      ministers complain they cannot visit a village 10 minutes away; they
      can pass laws but not implement them. They are Potemkin ministers,
      existing on paper only. Yet now they are to build the Switzerland of
      the Levant, where the streets are clean and government functions like
      clockwork. This is George in Wonderland stuff.

      Monday's speech even had a touch of black comedy. The president said
      the new Palestine should be taught good governance, nominating the
      Arab states for the role. Imagine it: democracy lessons from Saudi
      Arabia, a masterclass in liberty from Kuwait.

      But that is not the president's greatest fantasy. Yasser Arafat must
      go, he says, though without naming him. It may be refreshing to hear
      a US president come clean in his conviction that he has the right to
      pick other nations' leaders, but this demand exposes fully the
      vacuousness of Bush's thinking.

      For who does he imagine might replace Arafat? Does he not realise
      that Palestinians are angry with their leader not because he has been
      insufficiently pro-American but because they see him as too moderate,
      too willing to do Israel's bidding. The Palestinian street is not
      clamouring for a man who will crack down harder on Islamist militants
      or sing a western song about free trade and local elections.

      So if elections go ahead, here's what will happen. Either
      Palestinians will deliberately defy Washington and re-elect Arafat or
      they will choose someone more hardline. Any leader who has the
      Israeli or US stamp of approval will immediately be discredited as a
      puppet and promptly rejected.

      Also, for all his flaws, Arafat has an asset none of his rivals can
      match. He is still, thanks to his long history, Mr Palestine: his
      signature on a compromise deal is the only one that could persuade
      his people to accept it. By rushing his exit now, Bush is depriving
      any future peace agreement of the only Palestinian who could deliver
      it.

      S o the president's speech shows a man unconnected to Middle Eastern
      reality. But it is worse than unhinged; it is dangerous. First, Bush
      has given a green light to Sharon to continue his policy of military
      force coupled with a refusal to freeze settlement building on the
      West Bank. Monday's wording implied that Sharon is only obliged to
      pull back from Palestinian cities or freeze settlements once the
      Palestinians have worked their way through the US wishlist. So long
      as violence goes on, or Arafat remains in place, the Israeli PM can
      do what he likes.

      Given that the president refused to specify what the final settlement
      might look like - delaying that and other questions to later talks -
      he has supplied Sharon with an incentive to get busy now, building
      settlements, putting up fences and carving new borders. If Bush had
      declared that the eventual Palestinian state would be on the other
      side of Israel's 1967 borders, there would be no point in Israel
      trying to redraw the map. But now Sharon has every motive to create
      his notorious "facts on the ground".

      There is danger on the Palestinian side too. The only people
      celebrating yesterday were the Islamist extremists of Hamas and
      Jihad, chiding moderate Palestinians for ever believing that
      politics, rather than violence, might bring results. Bush has not
      dangled any serious carrot before the Palestinians: no promises on
      Jerusalem or refugees or final borders. Even Colin Powell's planned
      international conference seems to have vanished. All Palestinians
      will get if they comply with Washington's demands is a provisional
      state on 42% of the West Bank. Maybe. Few will consider that a prize
      worth the sacrifice of their own leader and a national
      transformation.

      So this new plan of Bush's is a flight of errant, irresponsible fancy
      that can only fail, bringing more bloodshed and ruin to the peoples
      of the Middle East who are desperate for something better.

      But it will reverberate far beyond. It will damage the international
      standing of the US president and America along with it. Muslim and
      Arab nations will be antagonised by this plan of inaction, while
      chancelleries from London to Moscow will realise they are dealing
      with a leader who pays no lip-service to them - or to basic reality.

      This is a foreign policy failure for George Bush. If he were a
      Democrat, both the Washington press corps and Congress would already
      be racking it up alongside the unextinguished threat from al-Qaida
      and the continued freedom from captivity of Osama bin Laden. Those
      failures, and now the guarantee of further slaughter in the Middle
      East, should be prompting hard questions about Bush and his war on
      terror. America needs to snap out of its post-9/11 torpor of
      consensus and realise there is a leadership problem in the US - and
      his name is George Bush.

      j.freedland@...
    • devas666
      Everything bush says is moronic. ...the children smile in single file... devas ... strengthen ... House ... world ... into ... an ... the ... even ... are ...
      Message 2 of 5 , Jun 28, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Everything bush says is moronic.

        ...the children smile in single file...
        devas

        --- In deathtoreligion@y..., whaven69 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        > I read this editorial bit in the newpaper the Guardian
        >
        > I thought it was just so true......I decided to share
        >
        > In the name of the goddess Devas..I present
        >
        >
        > George W's bloody folly
        >
        >
        >
        > Bush's fantasy Middle East plan is bound to fail. It will
        strengthen
        > those who want war, not peace
        >
        > Jonathan Freedland
        > Wednesday June 26, 2002
        > The Guardian
        >
        > That was a fantastic speech. Quite literally, fantastic. George
        > Bush's address on the Middle East, delivered outside the White
        House
        > on Monday evening, consisted, from beginning to end, of fantasy.
        > It bore so little relation to reality that diplomats around the
        world
        > spent yesterday shaking their heads in disbelief, before sinking
        into
        > gloom and despair. Our own Foreign Office tried gamely to spot the
        > odd nugget of sense in the Bush text - but, they admitted, it was
        an
        > uphill struggle. Israelis committed to a political resolution of
        the
        > conflict were heartbroken. Even Shimon Peres, foreign minister in
        > Ariel Sharon's coalition, reportedly called the speech "a fatal
        > mistake", warning: "A bloodbath can be expected."
        >
        > The core of the president's message was that the Palestinians must
        > embark on a sweeping process of internal reform before they can
        even
        > think about getting back to the negotiating table. They must
        > transform themselves into a democratic market economy, free of
        > corruption and with a separate judiciary and legislature if they
        are
        > to be considered eligible for statehood - which, when it comes,
        will
        > be merely provisional.
        >
        > Shall we count the ways in which this is completely absurd? George
        > Bush is demanding that Palestine become Sweden before it can become
        > Palestine: it must be stable, prosperous and boast constitutional
        > arrangements which still elude Britain - our judiciary and
        > legislature are not separate - let alone the Arab world before it
        can
        > become even a state-in-waiting.
        >
        > This would be laughable if Palestine were in tranquil Scandinavia.
        > Even there it would count as putting the cart before the horse,
        > asking a nation to create the institutions of a highly developed
        > country before it becomes a state. But this, remember, is being
        > demanded of the Palestinians - statebuilders with every possible
        > obstacle in their way.
        >
        > Like the fact that they are under military occupation. As the New
        > York Times noted yesterday: "How the Palestinians can be expected
        to
        > carry out elections or reform themselves while in a total lockdown
        by
        > the Israeli military remains something of a mystery." Palestinian
        > ministers complain they cannot visit a village 10 minutes away;
        they
        > can pass laws but not implement them. They are Potemkin ministers,
        > existing on paper only. Yet now they are to build the Switzerland
        of
        > the Levant, where the streets are clean and government functions
        like
        > clockwork. This is George in Wonderland stuff.
        >
        > Monday's speech even had a touch of black comedy. The president
        said
        > the new Palestine should be taught good governance, nominating the
        > Arab states for the role. Imagine it: democracy lessons from Saudi
        > Arabia, a masterclass in liberty from Kuwait.
        >
        > But that is not the president's greatest fantasy. Yasser Arafat
        must
        > go, he says, though without naming him. It may be refreshing to
        hear
        > a US president come clean in his conviction that he has the right
        to
        > pick other nations' leaders, but this demand exposes fully the
        > vacuousness of Bush's thinking.
        >
        > For who does he imagine might replace Arafat? Does he not realise
        > that Palestinians are angry with their leader not because he has
        been
        > insufficiently pro-American but because they see him as too
        moderate,
        > too willing to do Israel's bidding. The Palestinian street is not
        > clamouring for a man who will crack down harder on Islamist
        militants
        > or sing a western song about free trade and local elections.
        >
        > So if elections go ahead, here's what will happen. Either
        > Palestinians will deliberately defy Washington and re-elect Arafat
        or
        > they will choose someone more hardline. Any leader who has the
        > Israeli or US stamp of approval will immediately be discredited as
        a
        > puppet and promptly rejected.
        >
        > Also, for all his flaws, Arafat has an asset none of his rivals can
        > match. He is still, thanks to his long history, Mr Palestine: his
        > signature on a compromise deal is the only one that could persuade
        > his people to accept it. By rushing his exit now, Bush is depriving
        > any future peace agreement of the only Palestinian who could
        deliver
        > it.
        >
        > S o the president's speech shows a man unconnected to Middle
        Eastern
        > reality. But it is worse than unhinged; it is dangerous. First,
        Bush
        > has given a green light to Sharon to continue his policy of
        military
        > force coupled with a refusal to freeze settlement building on the
        > West Bank. Monday's wording implied that Sharon is only obliged to
        > pull back from Palestinian cities or freeze settlements once the
        > Palestinians have worked their way through the US wishlist. So long
        > as violence goes on, or Arafat remains in place, the Israeli PM can
        > do what he likes.
        >
        > Given that the president refused to specify what the final
        settlement
        > might look like - delaying that and other questions to later talks -

        > he has supplied Sharon with an incentive to get busy now, building
        > settlements, putting up fences and carving new borders. If Bush had
        > declared that the eventual Palestinian state would be on the other
        > side of Israel's 1967 borders, there would be no point in Israel
        > trying to redraw the map. But now Sharon has every motive to create
        > his notorious "facts on the ground".
        >
        > There is danger on the Palestinian side too. The only people
        > celebrating yesterday were the Islamist extremists of Hamas and
        > Jihad, chiding moderate Palestinians for ever believing that
        > politics, rather than violence, might bring results. Bush has not
        > dangled any serious carrot before the Palestinians: no promises on
        > Jerusalem or refugees or final borders. Even Colin Powell's planned
        > international conference seems to have vanished. All Palestinians
        > will get if they comply with Washington's demands is a provisional
        > state on 42% of the West Bank. Maybe. Few will consider that a
        prize
        > worth the sacrifice of their own leader and a national
        > transformation.
        >
        > So this new plan of Bush's is a flight of errant, irresponsible
        fancy
        > that can only fail, bringing more bloodshed and ruin to the peoples
        > of the Middle East who are desperate for something better.
        >
        > But it will reverberate far beyond. It will damage the
        international
        > standing of the US president and America along with it. Muslim and
        > Arab nations will be antagonised by this plan of inaction, while
        > chancelleries from London to Moscow will realise they are dealing
        > with a leader who pays no lip-service to them - or to basic
        reality.
        >
        > This is a foreign policy failure for George Bush. If he were a
        > Democrat, both the Washington press corps and Congress would
        already
        > be racking it up alongside the unextinguished threat from al-Qaida
        > and the continued freedom from captivity of Osama bin Laden. Those
        > failures, and now the guarantee of further slaughter in the Middle
        > East, should be prompting hard questions about Bush and his war on
        > terror. America needs to snap out of its post-9/11 torpor of
        > consensus and realise there is a leadership problem in the US - and
        > his name is George Bush.
        >
        > j.freedland@g...
      • proleus
        At least I can say that I didn t vote for him :).
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 5 9:35 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          At least I can say that I didn't vote for him :).
        • bestonnet_00
          I can say the same thing. Of course I never had the chance to vote for him being 12 000 km away from the backwards country.
          Message 4 of 5 , Jul 5 11:29 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            I can say the same thing.

            Of course I never had the chance to vote for him being 12 000 km away
            from the backwards country.

            --- In deathtoreligion@y..., proleus <no_reply@y...> wrote:
            > At least I can say that I didn't vote for him :).
          • proleus
            ... away ... yeah but you don t count.
            Message 5 of 5 , Jul 6 2:46 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In deathtoreligion@y..., bestonnet_00 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
              > I can say the same thing.
              >
              > Of course I never had the chance to vote for him being 12 000 km
              away
              > from the backwards country.
              >
              > --- In deathtoreligion@y..., proleus <no_reply@y...> wrote:
              > > At least I can say that I didn't vote for him :).

              yeah but you don't count.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.