Bush’s Radar Skips Israel

Bush’s radar skips Israel
Sidney Zion

[tag]President Bush[/tag], in back-to-back speeches defending the [tag]Iraq[/tag] [tag]war[/tag], has crossed [tag]Israel[/tag] off the list of countries hit by Islamic [tag]terrorists[/tag].

In his address yesterday to the [tag]Council on Foreign Relations[/tag] in Washington, Bush said: “The terrorists in Iraq share the same ideology as the terrorists who struck the United States on Sept. 11, blew up commuters in [tag]London[/tag] and [tag]Madrid[/tag], murdered tourists in [tag]Bali[/tag], killed workers in [tag]Riyadh[/tag] and slaughtered guests at a wedding in [tag]Amman[/tag], Jordan.”

In Annapolis last week, he listed the same countries, adding the massacre of Iraqi children and their parents, who had just been hit outside an Iraqi hospital.

How could Israel fail to make the President’s cut? Especially yesterday, after a suicide bomber killed five and wounded 60 in [tag]Netanya[/tag] on Monday. Not to mention that Israel has been the prime target of terror forever.

Is this an oversight by Israel’s greatest friend in the White House? Or could it be an effort to appease the Arab world?

Certainly no oversight. In 11 speeches over the past three months in which Bush has talked about terror, he only mentioned Israel three times – once before Jewish Republicans. Yesterday, he left them out again. “The enemy must be defeated on every battle front, from the streets of Western cities to the mountains of Afghanistan to the tribal regions of Pakistan to the islands of Southeast Asia and the Horn of Africa.”

If he forgot them last week, he was reminded by the Zionist Organization of America, in a tough press release that was cited by a reporter in the White House briefing the day after the Annapolis speech.

Q. “Why did the President do this, given 1,700 Israel citizens murdered by Islamo-fascists, and 10,000 more maimed by them since 1993?”

Scott McClellan, Bush’s spokesman: “There’s no stronger friend and supporter of Israel.”

Q. “Why did he not mention that with all those other countries?”

McClellan: “I don’t think that’s the way to look at it.”

Now again, a week later, Bush leaves Israel out of the terrorist hit list. I called Morton Klein, the head of the ZOA. What’s he think?

“I can’t accept it. It’s frustrating. Bush continues to omit Israel from the list. What do you think?”

I think Bush put a blue pencil through Israel, and I think he did it because he’s in big trouble with the war and all he can think about is appeasing the Arabs.

He likes to compare himself to Winston Churchill. The President should keep these words of his in mind: “If you feed the crocodiles, you’ll be his last meal.”

Originally published on December 8, 2005

McClellan is such a weasel it makes me sick. Whatever reporter asked that question should be patted on the back. It’s a damned good question, and one that our President, who’s quickly becoming one of the biggest bumbling idiots I’ve ever seen (no comments from the left-hand side of the peanut gallery, please) should answer.

Why not Israel?

That’s such an obvious omission it had to be intentional, and one that’s a slap in the face and should be explained.

The full exchange after the jump

Q The Zionist Organization of America is appalled that the President’s speech in Annapolis omitted any mention of Israel when he referred to countries that have been victims of Islamist terrorism. And my question: Why did the President do this, given 1,700 Israeli citizens murdered by Islamo-fascists, and 10,000 more maimed by then since 1993?

MR. McCLELLAN: Les, I think there’s no stronger friend and supporter of Israel than the President and this administration. And we have stood by Israel, and we will continue to support Israel.

Q Why did he not mention that with all those other countries?

MR. McCLELLAN: He talks about the Middle East often, he talks about Israel often.

Q But why at Annapolis did he leave out Israel?

MR. McCLELLAN: Les, I don’t think that’s the way to look at it.

Q You don’t? Well –

MR. McCLELLAN: He often talks about our friend –

Q Why did he miss at Navy — and mention all those others?

MR. McCLELLAN: Les, I just answered it. And I don’t think that’s the way to look at it.

Go ahead.

Q Getting back to the question –

MR. McCLELLAN: He didn’t mention — he didn’t mention every single country that has been attacked by terrorists.

Whitehouse.gov

This entry was posted in The Middle East. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Bob

    Why not Israel?

    It’s hard to defend Israel. Sure, Israelis are suicide bombed on a regular basis. But the Israelis are still expanding settlements. They will never let Palestine develop a sovereign state – even if one existed, the Israelis would dominate it. Of course, the Israeli democracy could not do this without the support of her people. So when a scum-sucking terrorist blasts a handful of innocent Israelis, just realize that those “innocent Jews” are fighting a 40+ year battle to steal as much land from the former inhabitants of Palestine as possible.

    America will leave Iraq – we are not imperialists. The Jews will never leave Israel proper, nor should they. But if they have it their way, they will never leave even half of Jerusalem, nor will they vacate Gaza, or the West Bank. The only hope for peace is if America lays the smack down on Israel and forces them to cede enough land and power to the Palestinians so that they can form their own nation.

    I hope to my Judeo-Christian God that our government eventually recognizes this.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    Sure give ‘em land. That’ll bring peace. Amazing no one has thought of that before. :roll:

    Nice root causes argument. :roll:

  • http://angsuman.taragana.net/ Angsuman Chakraborty

    It seems India wasn’t mentioned either.

  • Bob

    Vinny, saying “Nice root causes argument.” is NOT a nice way to dismiss an argument.

    Giving the Palestinians land that is being stolen – as we speak – may or may not bring peace. But it is an essential necessary first step, and a damn good one at that.

    It’s one thing to have an honest debate between Israel and Palestine as to how peace can be reached. But we we cannot even begin to have such a discussion until the land issue is resolved – without it, there is no Palestine to debate.

    Don’t forget that, as short-sited and violent as the Palestinians are, they are human beings and are, by nature, selfish and rational. In this light, it seems obvious that the Palestinians, acting in a selfish yet rational manner, would have to make peace to hold on to their land and and build a nation. There will still be terrorists, but they will eventually be marginalized by the majority who want peace and stability.

  • Bob

    Why not Israel?

    It’s hard to defend Israel. Sure, Israelis are suicide bombed on a regular basis. But the Israelis are still expanding settlements. They will never let Palestine develop a sovereign state – even if one existed, the Israelis would dominate it. Of course, the Israeli democracy could not do this without the support of her people. So when a scum-sucking terrorist blasts a handful of innocent Israelis, just realize that those “innocent Jews” are fighting a 40+ year battle to steal as much land from the former inhabitants of Palestine as possible.

    America will leave Iraq – we are not imperialists. The Jews will never leave Israel proper, nor should they. But if they have it their way, they will never leave even half of Jerusalem, nor will they vacate Gaza, or the West Bank. The only hope for peace is if America lays the smack down on Israel and forces them to cede enough land and power to the Palestinians so that they can form their own nation.

    I hope to my Judeo-Christian God that our government eventually recognizes this.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Sure give ‘em land. That’ll bring peace. Amazing no one has thought of that before. :roll:

    Nice root causes argument. :roll:

  • http://angsuman.taragana.net/ Angsuman Chakraborty

    It seems India wasn’t mentioned either.

  • Bob

    Vinny, saying “Nice root causes argument.” is NOT a nice way to dismiss an argument.

    Giving the Palestinians land that is being stolen – as we speak – may or may not bring peace. But it is an essential necessary first step, and a damn good one at that.

    It’s one thing to have an honest debate between Israel and Palestine as to how peace can be reached. But we we cannot even begin to have such a discussion until the land issue is resolved – without it, there is no Palestine to debate.

    Don’t forget that, as short-sited and violent as the Palestinians are, they are human beings and are, by nature, selfish and rational. In this light, it seems obvious that the Palestinians, acting in a selfish yet rational manner, would have to make peace to hold on to their land and and build a nation. There will still be terrorists, but they will eventually be marginalized by the majority who want peace and stability.