Thursday, January 10, 2008

Brazen Hypocrisy in Bush Betrayal of Israel


President Bush called yesterday for an end to the "occupation" of Arab lands in Palestine by the Israeli military. The breath-taking hypocrisy and ignorance in such a demand defies one's ability to comprehend. Israel would be better off if we de-camped from the Middle East all together than it would be with our insane current policy. The current policy is that the U.S. taxpayers borrow money from the Chi-coms to buy piles of weapons for both sides in the Middle East, and then use our leverage to pressure the Israelis to turn over their historic lands to a neighboring entity run by terrorist groups who have sworn their destruction. I am not joking. I am not even exaggerating. That is what we are currently doing.

The Bush administration insists that Israel withdraw from territory that is the historic home of its own people and leave it to a seething population whose public school system teaches that the highest honor a child can attain is martyrdom from straping bombs to themselves and blowing up some Jews. Bush is insisting that Israel withdraw and turn their historic land over to the terrorist groups which control those territories. Groups that have repeatedly attacked Israel and have sworn her destruction!

Meanwhile, Bush himself is administering the occupation of Arab lands to which we have no historic claim, had noting to do with 9/11, and who are no threat to the United States. Despite our recent success against Al-Quida in Iraq, they still have a larger presence there than they did before we came. That is because the lingering occupation was such a powerful recruiting tool for Al-Quida. Still, they have zero chance of controlling the whole country. Contrast that with the terrorist groups in Palestine, who run the place from start to finish except for the restraining hand of the Israeli military which Bush wants gone.

While Bush demands that Israel withdraw, he spends billions of our dollars constructing 14 huge military bases in Iraq. This indicates intentions to occupy the country for decades. In fact, we have garrisons all over the region, over 700 bases in more than 100 countries. Israel withdraw? Who are we to demand that Israel withdraw from anywhere?

This man, who demands Israel withdraw their military from their own territory (to turn it over to terrorists) has busied himself sending our own military to every mudhole on earth. On this one, he is not with us, he is with the terrorists.

Truly Israel would be better off if we were not arming both sides and then using the leverage to pressure them to let the terrorists win.

5 Comments:

Anonymous Rick said...

Mark,

Why don't you do some research on your man Ron Paul and do a story on his past newsletters and the racism contained in them. Sorry Mark, but the denial on this site is laughable.
Here is part of that article.

The New Republic

Angry White Man
by James Kirchick

The bigoted past of Ron Paul.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008

The Freedom Report's online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul's newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles "Lefty" Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions," that "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be," and that black representative Barbara Jordan is "the archetypical half-educated victimologist" whose "race and sex protect her from criticism."

Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.

But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.


The politics of the organization are complicated--its philosophy derives largely from the work of the late Murray Rothbard, a Bronx-born son of Jewish immigrants from Poland and a self-described "anarcho-capitalist" who viewed the state as nothing more than "a criminal gang"--but one aspect of the institute's worldview stands out as particularly disturbing: its attachment to the Confederacy. Thomas E. Woods Jr., a member of the institute's senior faculty, is a founder of the League of the South, a secessionist group, and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, a pro-Confederate, revisionist tract published in 2004. Paul enthusiastically blurbed Woods's book, saying that it "heroically rescues real history from the politically correct memory hole." Thomas DiLorenzo, another senior faculty member and author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, refers to the Civil War as the "War for Southern Independence" and attacks "Lincoln cultists"; Paul endorsed the book on MSNBC last month in a debate over whether the Civil War was necessary (Paul thinks it was not). In April 1995, the institute hosted a conference on secession at which Paul spoke; previewing the event, Rockwell wrote to supporters, "We'll explore what causes [secession] and how to promote it." Paul's newsletters have themselves repeatedly expressed sympathy for the general concept of secession. In 1992, for instance, the Survival Report argued that "the right of secession should be ingrained in a free society" and that "there is nothing wrong with loosely banding together small units of government. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, we too should consider it."

The people surrounding the von Mises Institute--including Paul--may describe themselves as libertarians, but they are nothing like the urbane libertarians who staff the Cato Institute or the libertines at Reason magazine. Instead, they represent a strain of right-wing libertarianism that views the Civil War as a catastrophic turning point in American history--the moment when a tyrannical federal government established its supremacy over the states. As one prominent Washington libertarian told me, "There are too many libertarians in this country ... who, because they are attracted to the great books of Mises, ... find their way to the Mises Institute and then are told that a defense of the Confederacy is part of libertarian thought."

Paul's alliance with neo-Confederates helps explain the views his newsletters have long espoused on race. Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began,"

4:50 PM, January 10, 2008  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

The country is going under, the polices espoused by Ron Paul are the only thing that can save her, and you are digging up 17 year old statements from someone else that don't reflect his views and are the opposite of what I have seen and heard in the man.

I have seen and heard no evidence of racism, I heard him say on PBS that he does not want the support of race-hate groups. His policies don't reflect racism.

Tell you what, how bout we get some anonymous folks (no bylines) to circulate the "Rick Candler Report" and say a bunch of stuff you don't agree with about race. That way even if you have lived a flawless personal life and are correct on every policy someone can find a quote from that unattributed non-bylined letter from 15 years ago and ruin your political career with it. You can see how easy it is to get someone's life ruined when "conservative republicans" start self-deputizing for the PC Police.

NO to PC intimidation. Yes to Freedom. Yes to Liberty. Yes to Ron Paul.

5:11 PM, January 10, 2008  
Anonymous Rick said...

Mark,

So he has made racist comments in the past but has had a change of heart? Is that what you're saying Mark? If thats it I haven't seen or heard this from Paul. And it certainly hasn't been told on this site. Nothing but denials.

This mans undeniable history shows why he gets support from the likes of David Duke.

5:49 PM, January 10, 2008  
Blogger The Real Sporer said...

Come on over and share your debate thoughts are The Real Sporer. Post game also.

7:30 PM, January 10, 2008  
Blogger The Real Sporer said...

Come on over and share your debate thoughts are The Real Sporer. Post game also.

7:30 PM, January 10, 2008  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home