web analytics
August 24, 2016 / 20 Av, 5776

Posts Tagged ‘bush’

Down Rabbit Hole with Anti-Israel Conspiracy Crowd after Nice, Munich, Tweets

Monday, July 25th, 2016

To start our review of how the world’s conspiracy theories crazy crowd is lumping together Israel with every evil, real and imagined, let’s begin with the following headline, in a website called Veterans Today: “BREAKING! Same Israeli photo-propagandist pre-positioned in Nice AND NOW MUNICH.” And the story (one line, really) goes: “Mossad photographer Richard Gutjahr was pre-positioned in both Nice AND Munich! Talk about chutzpah.”

Richard Gutjahr, 43, is a German TV moderator, journalist and blogger. On July 14, 2016, Gutjahr was present at the truck ramming attack in Nice, which he reported on Twitter and on German media.

Gutjahr is married to former Israeli MK Einat Wilf. They have two children. That explains the “Israeli photo-propagandist” part. Gutjahr is not himself Israeli, but his wife is. Wilf is equally connected to the Labor party (served as consultant to Shimon Peres) and Likud (writes columns for Yisrael Hayom).

Richard Gutjahr

Richard Gutjahr

Now it gets complicated: after shooting the truck massacre in Nice more than two weeks ago, journalist Richard Gutjahr was also present during the police operation at the Olmypia shopping center in Munich and tweeted pictures from the incident. Gutjahr shared one picture of a group of armed police at the mall entrance, and another of armed officers crouching behind a wall.

Then he tweeted: “I made mistakes today. Could not believe that I once again ended up in such a situation. The images are now gone. #OEZ” The hashtag stands for Olympia-Einkaufszentrum, the mall where the attack took place.

Gutjahr tweet

What are the chances that the same journalist, who lives and works in Europe, would be present during two separate terrorist attacks within two weeks? Gutjahr himself appears stunned by this coincidence, as his tweet attests. He lost the images he had shot, admittedly that’s suspicious, but could also be explained so many reasonable different ways.

Enter former Georgia Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, whose Saturday night Tweet linked Israel to the two acts of terrorism: “Same Israeli photographer captures Nice and Munich tragedies,” McKinney tweeted, pointing to the Veterans Today page, and asking, “How likely is that? Remember the Dancing Israelis?”

Cynthia McKinney tweet

The “dancing Israelis” is a reference to a real rabbit hall drop, a September 11, 2001 story about a moving van with five young Israeli tourists which was stopped by NJ police in a Jersey City parking lot for what could best described as inappropriate behavior. The men were eventually detained and interrogated by the FBI. The FBI report about the incident remains classified until 2035. In the conspiracy theory universe, those five Israelis constitute the proof that Mossad was behind the 9/11 attack. Because, as we know, Mossad agents always dance in open parking lots after taking down major US targets.

Cynthia McKinney is no stranger to Planet Crazy. McKinney was defeated by Denise Majette in the 2002 Democratic primary. Her loss was a rejection by the voters of her support for Arab causes and her suggestion that President Bush knew in advance of the Sept. 11 attacks. Her father, State Rep. Billy McKinney, said on Atlanta TV that his daughter was fighting for her political life because the “Jews have bought everybody. Jews. J-e-w-s.”

On March 29, 2006, Cynthia McKinney struck a Capitol Hill Police officer for stopping her to ask for identification. In 2007 she left the Democratic Party. She ran for President as the Green Party candidate in 2008 and received 0.12% of the vote.

As to Richard Gutjahr, the video McKinney linked to claims: “The fact that this guy happened to be at both [terrorist attacks], there’s no way it’s a coincidence.” Add to that Gutjahr’s Israeli wife, who served in the IDF Intelligence unit, and the video concludes that “it’s 100 percent clear that Israel’s fingerprints are all over these events.”

The sad fact is that in many communities and many countries, you don’t need more than the above conspiracy silliness to convict, and attempts to explain that while it’s unusual for a German journalist to be present in two terror attacks, it’s far from impossible, or that being married to an Israeli does not make one a Mossad agent—immediately dub the explainer an agent of the same conspiracy. Because when one denies there is a conspiracy, isn’t that exactly what someone behind the conspiracy would say?

JNi.Media

Shiloh Musings: Bush Republicans- Sore Losers!

Wednesday, July 20th, 2016

In American democracy, like baseball, tennis and football, there’s no such thing as a tie. There’s one winner and winner takes all. True democrats, small “d,”  are supposed to accept their losses, and when it comes to a Presidential nomination, support the winner, even if he/she is the candidate least favored. The majority wins. That’s what democracy is all about.

At this point in the American Republican political calendar, it doesn’t really matter which of the wannabes you supported, a loyal Republican leader, like those in the Bush Clan, have a responsibility to accept that their candidate lost, and Donald Trump won the nomination to be the official Republican Presidential nominee.

I have no doubt that the Bush Machine is supporting, in one way or another…, the Republican minority that is undermining/sabotaging Trump’s democratically chosen candidacy.

Convention drama: Trump campaign stops rules rebellion
Cleveland (CNN)Open discord and revolt broke out on the floor of the Republican National Convention Monday as GOP officials crushed an attempt to change party rules, a maneuver that could have embarrassed presumptive nominee Donald Trump.
In a highly unusual show of disunity and anger on the floor of a modern party convention, a group of states tried to force a state-by-state roll call vote on the rules of the convention. The rebellion apparently caught Trump’s campaign team by surprise, and his lieutenants were seen frantically whipping votes on the floor to squelch the effort amid scenes of deepening disarray.

Without powerful backing, the anti-Trump Republicans would have accepted their loss and either played ball fairly for Trump, or quietly wiped their tears and started working on 2020. This does not look good for Republican democracy, not at all.

It’s clear that these sore losers would rather hand the Presidency over to Hillary Clinton and the Democrats than support Trump. Remember that no Republican got close to Trump in the primaries. It’s a sorry state for the Republicans to be so un-American, so antidemocratic, so disloyal to their own party, so selfish and so disregarding the wishes of the voters.

Batya Medad

New York Jews Dumping Clinton for Sanders

Thursday, September 24th, 2015

New York Jews are losing their taste for Hillary Clinton and are moving towards Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, according to a new Siena College poll.

A majority of 54 percent of Jews in New York view Clinton as “unfavorable,” slightly more than the state average of 51 percent. If primary elections were held today, Clinton would come out on top but only with a plurality of 45%, compared with 24 and 23 percent for Biden and Sanders respectively.

Among Jewish voters, according to JPInsider, registered Democrats would give Clinton only 36 percent of their votes. Biden would win 31% of the Jewish vote, and Sanders would pick up 25 percent.

Clinton is in a tailspin and cannot dig her outsell of her deepening e-mail scandal hole, which makes Sanders look more appealing. Biden still has not announced if he will run, and if he does throw his hat in the ring, he will grab support from those who so far have backed off because of his procrastination.

Siena College pollster Steven Greenberg said:

For the first time ever, Hillary Clinton is under water with New York voters, facing her worst favorability rating ever in her adopted home state. Her favorability rating has seen a net drop of 21 points since July.

However, Clinton is the choice of New York Democrats

On the Republican side, Jews favor Marco Rubio.

Statewide, the Siena poll showed that a majority of Democrats want Biden to run for president.

Trump still leads the Republican field, with a commanding lead of 34% compared with only 14% for Carson and 11% for Bush.

Greenberg added:

Biden runs best against the three leading Republican candidates, and he runs stronger against each of the three than does Clinton with Democrats, Republicans and independents.  Though Sanders has a bigger lead against Bush than does Clinton, she has bigger leads than Sanders against Carson and Trump.

 

Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Bush Tells Jews, ‘I Don’t Trust Iran’

Wednesday, October 16th, 2013

Former President George W. Bush told leaders of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations that he did not trust the Iranian regime to change its intentions toward Israel, according to several people in attendance.

“I will not believe in Iran’s peaceful intentions until they can irrevocably prove that it’s true,” Bush told the 1,200 guests at the gala event at the Waldorf Astoria in New York City. “The United States’ foreign policy must be clear eyed and understand that until the form of government changes in Iran, it is unlikely that their intentions toward Israel will change.”

The event, held Tuesday night, honored several past presidents of the umbrella organization and its longtime executive vice-chairman, Malcolm Hoenlein.

Bush’s appearance had not been publicized, and attendees were asked not to record or tape his comments.

The program also featured video testimonials from President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as remarks from several Israeli and U.S. politicians, and Jewish notables.

JTA

Obama’s Head-in-the-Sand Speech About Terror

Sunday, May 26th, 2013

Originally published at Rubin Reports.

President Barack Obama’s speech at the National Defense University, “The Future of Our Fight against Terrorism” is a remarkable exercise in wishful thinking and denial. Here is basically what he says: the only strategic threat to the United States is posed by terrorists carrying out terrorist attacks.

In the 6400 words used by Obama, Islam only constitutes three of them and most interestingly in all three the word is used to deny that the United States is at war with Islam. In fact, that is what President George Bush said precisely almost a dozen years ago, after September 11. Yet why have not hundreds of such denials had the least bit of effect on the course of that war?

In fact, to prove that the United States is not at war with Islam, the Obama Administration has sided with political Islam throughout the Middle East, to the extent that some Muslims think Obama is doing damage to Islam, their kind of non-revolutionary Islam.

And how has the fight against al-Qaeda resulted in a policy that has, however inadvertently, armed al-Qaeda, as in Libya and Syria?

Once again, I will try to explain the essence of Obama strategy, a simple point that many people seem unable to grasp:

Obama views al-Qaeda as a threat because it wants to attack America directly with terrorism. But all other Islamist groups are not a threat. In fact, they can be used to stop al-Qaeda.

This is an abandonment of a strategic perspective. The word Islamism or political Islam or any other version of that word do not appear even once. Yet this is the foremost revolutionary movement of this era, the main threat in the world to U.S. interests and even to Western civilization.

If one wanted to come up with a slogan for the Obama Administration it would be that to win the war on terrorism one must lose the war on revolutionary Islamism because only by showing that America is the Islamists’ friend will it take away the incentive to join up with al-Qaeda and attack the United States.

Please take the two sections in bold above very seriously if you want to understand U.S. Middle East policy.

According to Obama:

If the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Egypt that is not a strategic threat but a positive advantage because it is the best organization able to curb al-Qaeda. And that policy proves that the United States is not at war with Islam.

If the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Tunisia that is not a strategic threat but a positive advantage because it is the best organization able to curb al-Qaeda. And that policy proves that the United States is not at war with Islam.

If the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Syria that is not a strategic threat but a positive advantage because it is the best organization able to curb al-Qaeda. And that policy proves that the United States is not at war with Islam.

If a regime whose viewpoint is basically equivalent to the Muslim Brotherhood—albeit far more subtle and culture—dominates Turkey that is not a strategic threat but a positive advantage because it is the best organization able to curb al-Qaeda. And that policy proves that the United States is not at war with Islam.

These and other strategic defeats do not matter, says Obama in effect:

After I took office, we stepped up the war against al Qaeda, but also sought to change its course. We relentlessly targeted al Qaeda’s leadership. We ended the war in Iraq, and brought nearly 150,000 troops home. We pursued a new strategy in Afghanistan, and increased our training of Afghan forces. We unequivocally banned torture, affirmed our commitment to civilian courts, worked to align our policies with the rule of law, and expanded our consultations with Congress.

And yet the Taliban is arguably close to taking over Afghanistan in future. The group has spread to Pakistan. The rule of law in Afghanistan is a joke and soldiers there know that the Afghan government still uses torture.

Today, Osama bin Laden is dead, and so are most of his top lieutenants. There have been no large-scale attacks on the United States, and our homeland is more secure. Fewer of our troops are in harm’s way, and over the next 19 months they will continue to come home. Our alliances are strong, and so is our standing in the world. In sum, we are safer because of our efforts.

Well, it is quite true that security measures within the United States have been largely successful at stopping attacks. But the frequency of attempted attacks has been extensive, some of which were blocked by luck and the expenditure of one trillion dollars. Country after country has been taken over by radical Islamists who can be expected to fight against American interests in future. Obama continues:

So America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us…

But he never actually defines it except to suggest that (1) al-Qaeda has spread to other countries (which does not sound like a victory for the United States) and (2) That its affiliates and imitators are more amateurish than those who pulled off the September 11, 2001 attack. Yet they got away with the September 11, 2012 attack.

Barry Rubin

The Convenient Radical

Sunday, April 7th, 2013

Right next to the tables where the chess players wait, chessboards laid out, clocks set up, to gull some passing businessman or arrogant NYU student out of his lunch money, the remnant of the Occupation remains.

Below the break-dancers spin and tumble enjoying the first days of spring. A bad drummer by the fountain persistently whacks away providing a dissonant soundtrack to the yuppies toting bags full of supposedly organic groceries from the stalls of the farmers’ market.

Occupy Wall Street isn’t much in the news now. It lost the battle on the southern frontier and has settled into a prolonged brawl with Trinity Church that was doomed from the start. Not too long ago, the Occupiers earned constant headlines. Now they have been reduced to a single folding table manned by a beardo with a banner featuring Martin Luther King and Obama. “I have a dream, not a drone,” it reads.

A homeless man toting a rusted shopping cart full of bottles and cans stops by to chat with him and then moves along after dropping a dime in the coffee cup.

Thanks to New York City’s recycling laws, the cans and bottles are money in the bank. The homeless man with the rusted shopping cart is working for a living while the Occupier has a coffee cup and is protesting for a living.

This is Occupy Wall Street and even though spring is in the air and the weather is warm enough for a renewal of the occupation, you don’t hear much about them anymore. And there are good reasons for that. There are bands to follow, streetcorners to squat and trends to hop on elsewhere in the country. If you’re going to protest for a living, California with its more temperate weather, is a better bet than New York City, where the warm weather is only now waving a flag while promising to show up in a month or two. But the bigger reason is that Occupy Wall Street is now surplus to requirements.

New York City radicalism is a lifetime occupation for a small fringe, but the fringe is mostly ignored. The Trotskyite fronts never stop organizing anti-war rallies and informational events, no matter who sits in the White House.  If Dennis Kucinich won in 2016 and replaced the Defense Department with the Department of Peace, on the next day the usual suspects would still assemble at Union Square, right between the chess players and the breakdancers, and demand an end to war.

Under Clinton, the anti-war business was booming on the fringe, but the news media never deigned to show up and inflate rally counts the way they did once Bush was in office. The same press releases against the War in Yugoslavia were ignored until they were dusted off and swapped out for Afghanistan and Iraq and then suddenly the media couldn’t get enough of them.

The same aging Stalinists, Maoists and Trots, the Grandmothers for Peace and the Schoolteachers for Socialism and the ragged college students clutching their copies of Noam Chomsky, suddenly became important and relevant when they marched against Bush, even though they had been marching against Clinton without a single reporter in sight, have now gone back into purgatory.

The signs are still there. Smeared and taped to lampposts they denounce American imperialism in Syria, drone strikes in Afghanistan and the usual Latin American aperitifs. There are movie showings, speakers and rallies– but no further attention is paid to them. Because they are no longer convenient.

Occupy Wall Street, which under all the coats of paint was the same thing with a different brand, is no longer convenient. It served its purpose as an election weapon. Now that the election has been won, by the class warrior glutted on Wall Street money, no one cares about the little hairy man sitting at the folding table and trying to push buttons.

The remnants of the occupation sit at their card tables, like the last Japanese soldiers on a lost island, unwilling to understand that they were nothing more than a tool that venture capitalists investing in Green Energy and medical IT and a hundred other things, not to mention the usual mortgage men, used to get what they wanted.

Occupy Wall Street was every bit as hollow as any other election stunt. It was a temporary alignment between the agenda of the left and the far-left or the far-left and the really-far-left. The details, like the slapfights between the various species of Maoist, don’t matter. What does matter is that there are, as Elaine on Seinfeld once said, successful and unsuccessful Communists. The successful kind pose for official portraits. The unsuccessful kind have to compete with breakdancers, chess players, and burly black men wearing pink “I Am a Girl” jackets collecting petition signatures for the U.N. Plan International campaign to fight gender inequality.

The convenient radical is only convenient when the left, in all its varied forms, is out of power leading to a common front. Then his toxic ideas bleed into less radical sections of his movement. Each setback radicalizes the opposition until it becomes hard to tell the men from the pigs and the liberals from the commies. And then success is achieved, some section of the coalition is carried forward into power and their unlucky cousins are left behind at their folding tables.

That is how the Democrats turned so far to the left and adopted most of the talking points of the anti-war movement. But then once in office, they still found that they had wars to run. It’s all very well to say that Martin Luther King had a dream not a drone, but it’s hard to fight terrorists with dreams. Even when your anti-war credentials are impeccable, you sometimes come to the conclusion that it takes a drone.

These days the anti-war movement is making more headway with some Republicans than Democrats; which shows how desperate they have become. And Anti-Wall Street? The Democratic Party is Wall Street. Take away the V.C.s, the trial lawyers and the entertainment industry, and you have eliminated the non-contractor funding for the party of the jackass.

Occupy Wall Street, like Obama pretending to scold Wall Street’s bonuses, was a joke. A joke that its supporters and his supporters never understood. The punchline is power. Those who have it and those who don’t.

The radical is a convenience. In a common front, he provides ideas and energy. If he cleans up well and comes up with some moneymaking ideas and a seat at a non-profit foundation, then he can get an invite to the White House even if he has blood on his hands. But for every radical who finds a spot on the board of the family foundation of some deceased Republican millionaire, there are a dozen who never get a clue or come to understand the nature of their profession.

When the alignment has passed, then the convenient radical either becomes a successful leftist or he gets a job peddling Fifty Shades of Grey at the nearby Strand bookstore, once a radical haunt, now made over into another Barnes and Noble, under the guiding hand of the wife of Senator Ron Wyden; a most successful leftist indeed.

Like every other profession, some radicals move up the ladder and others remain toting around books full of Marxist theory among the skyscrapers of the Capitalist reality. The passion and energy is a bank that the left withdraws from when politically convenient and ignores when politically inconvenient.

The energy and appetites of the beast still lurk in every city where the theoreticians spin their webs, the propagandists inflame and the perpetual students gesture animatedly. As progressives they believe that inevitably every terrible idea that they have will go mainstream and the last sixty years have largely borne them out in this. But the filtering mechanism is the issue.

In the era of Obama, the filter is weaker than ever. The pattern echoes the ongoing one of every prior administration which, even in its conservative periods, has been more willing to let in bad ideas than the left. But the floodgates are not entirely open either because the one great difference between the successful leftist and the unsuccessful radical is the old maxim about why treason never prospers.

The leftist and the radical, successful and unsuccessful, are both tyrants at heart. But the leftist understands that tyranny is a vehicle for personal power and prosperity. The radical does not.

The difference between the leftist and the radical is that the radical sits outside to promote the cause, while the leftist profits from his shivering. The radical can, and often does, become the successful leftist, but to do so he must learn the basic lesson that the endgame is wealth and power. That wealth and power can come from wrecking a nation, but the wrecking ball can’t come too close to the homes of the Marxist millionaires picking up the tab.

The convenient radical understands this. Like Noam Chomsky or Oliver Stone, Howard Zinn, Bill Ayers or Michael Moore he has the timing and the instincts to get the right exposure at the right time and then profit from it. His ideas are radical, but his instincts are impeccable. He knows the right people and the right buttons to push. But most of all, he doesn’t collect donations in a coffee cup. While he writes furious essays denouncing capitalism or screams at Wall Street through a megaphone, he has a broker and an investment plan that will ride out the tough times.

Though the convenient radical may despise those on the left to the right of him, he understands how to cater to them and how to embed his ideas in theirs. The inconvenient radical is a man of poor instincts. He is the sort of man who is still sitting under that statue of George Washington lifting his sword to mark the departure of British troops from New York City watching the breakdancers spin and the shoppers move dazedly in the organic triangle between Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s and the Farmers’ Market without realizing that the occupation is over and it’s time to move on.

Wall Street has won because it is simply capital and the liberals and the leftists have their capital that they need investing. Money always wins, in one form or another. Societies may collapse into dysfunction, but there will still be someone there selling them coffee and croissants at the end. And someone advancing him money and investing in coffee cup manufacturers and looking at commodity prices and calculating supply and demand. They may not do it well, but they will do it. There may just not be a middle class to do it with.

The convenient radical understands that Wall Street reflects his priorities. If he wants to push billions in bad loans to minority homeowners or invest in Green Energy, then it will be on board. Money will be lost, but it will be someone else’s money. The inconvenient radical does not understand this. He thinks that there will one day be an actual victory. The banks will fall and be replaced by communes where food will be awarded based on the results of quizzes about the life and ideas of Michel Foucault .That is what makes him hopelessly stupid, occasionally convenient, but largely useless.

The inconvenient radical does not understand that the commune is not an option. There will either be a society with a large middle class dominated by the middle class or a society of the poor dominated by the upper class.

The convenient radical understands this and seeks the society in which a large underclass is dominated by a narrow elite. This is the society that he tirelessly inveighs against and wants to create. This outcome is what makes the left into the totalitarian entity that it is. The knowing hypocrisy is what distinguishes the successful leftist, from the inconvenient radical.

Originally published at Sultan Knish.

Daniel Greenfield

Reflections on the Invasion of Iraq, a Decade Later

Tuesday, March 19th, 2013

How does one understand the U.S.-led expeditionary force that attacked Iraq exactly a decade ago, on March 18, 2003?

Saddam Hussein’s regime was one of the most monstrous in human history, enslaving some 20 million people to his cruel and demanding will and, without provocation, attacking several of his neighbors (Iran and Kuwait especially, also Israel and Saudi Arabia). In addition, he aspired to dominate the worldwide oil & gas trade and tried to build nuclear weapons. One can hardly imagine a greater menace to civilized life.

The decade that followed has seen a return to the more mundane awfulness of the Middle East. Communal problems, political turmoil, Islamist growth, poor relations with neighbors, but at least no gassing of one’s own population, invading neighbors, or threats to the world economy. This is all anyone could have expected – except that George W. Bush naïvely convinced himself and others that Iraq could be free and prosperous and even a model for the region. He then led a trillion-dollar effort that cost thousands of lives and came up woefully short.

So, yes, Iraq and the world are better off with Saddam gone. But the high hopes of a rehabilitation by the U.S. government have been disappointed. This should offer a pointed lesson for future temptations to “nation build”: Western powers enjoy overwhelming battlefield superiority but face great difficulty when trying to shape other countries. Don’t try the latter unless the stakes are high enough and the will exists to see it through.

Originally published at Danielpipes.org and The National Review Online, The Corner, as “Reflection on the Invasion of Iraq,” March 18, 2013.

Daniel Pipes

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/the-lions-den-daniel-pipes/reflections-on-the-invasion-of-iraq-a-decade-later/2013/03/19/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: