Judging by your obvious jingoism, you have never been to London.

In reply to this comment by Pprt:
Take a look at the faces: 0:18, 0:32, 0:50, 1:47, 1:53, 2:15 etc

There was even a Hezbollah flag there (the yellow one) and a poster of Ahmadinejad.

Take a look at the faces: 0:18, 0:32, 0:50, 1:47, 1:53, 2:15 etc

There was even a Hezbollah flag there (the yellow one) and a poster of Ahmadinejad.

>> ^RedSky:


I have to agree on your first point, PEPFAR did a lot of good, and it's probably the most common thing people put forward when asked "what did Bush do right?" Still, the point Olbermann makes about not funding groups who promote condom use goes to show how petty Bush can be, even when he's doing something that's working out well.

The Muslim theocracy in Lebanon is referring to the elections Bush pushed for that resulted in a big, legitimizing win for Hezbollah -- something Bush's own advisers had predicted. You can argue that maybe other courses of action might have had the same outcome or worse, but you can't argue that giving Hezbollah legitimate influence over a country's government is anything but a lost battle in this "war on terror" he's so fond of.

As for the Mumbai bombings, and Benazir Bhutto's assasination, they're outgrowths of a policy towards Pakistan that involved simply trusting Musharraf, and giving him buckets of aid with little to no accountability. Instead, all we ever hear is "Pakistan is on our side, Iraq is the main battlefront on the War on Terror." Looking for bin Laden in Waziristan is off the table.

You have a point about North Korea being a global failing, but they were trending towards dismantling their nuclear program during Clinton's diplomatic efforts. Bush stormed in with his "we don't talk to bad guys" policy, dismantled the talks, and North Korea responded by reverting to their old ways. They were left unchecked (again, Iraq was to be our main/only focus) until they were able to build a nuclear weapon.

As for the one-sided nature of Olbermann, there's not much to argue there other than to say "they started it first." Are Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Bill O'Reilly some sort of multifaceted objective political commentary? I don't want MSNBC to become the left's Fox News, but I think the media environment can tolerate one Olbermann, and many Maddow-like personalities, for there to at least be two sides doing the whole spin-as-news shtick.

If it were me, I'd love for the media to give believably objective reporting of current events, facts, and history, but all of the outlets that try to do so are either a) struggling to "prove" their objectivity by trying to show that both parties have equal responsibility for all failures or b) are flagged by people as being left-leaning because objectively speaking, Republicans haven't gotten anything right in quite a while.

We'll see how long people keep accusing, say, PBS or the NYT of being "liberal" now that Democrats are in power. I suspect even HuffPo and TPM will get credit for doing fact-based reporting, now that Democrats are in the driver's seat. After all, the "liberal" press loves to attack authority, no matter who they are. "Conservative" press will keep doing what it's been doing; smear Democrats at all times, praise conservative Republicans at all times, and frame all failures as a direct outgrowth of failure to adhere to conservative principles, or failure to pursue them drastically enough.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^bcglorf:
That's either the most ignorant or racist remark that seems to be made by people about the issue.

I'm not surprised you said that.
I'm actually pro-Israel.
For some reason, some people equate any criticism with Israel, its actions or origins, with a certain form of racism.
You can't sugar coat it: millions of Palestinians who used to own land and live in that region no longer own the land and are living as expatriates or refugees.
They received zero recompense for their loss.
That is not a racist statement; it is a painful and obvious reality.


And before you said:
Yeah, they stole that land fair and square, right?

Sounds really pro-Israel there now doesn't it? Did you even read my post? All the 'occupied' territories where originally 'stolen' by Arab countries in 1948 through an effort to destroy Israel. They never gave the land back to the Palestinian people, they instead used it to launch attacks on Israel in new attempts to eliminate it. As a result of Israel winning many of those wars they took control of much of that land themselves. Solely laying the blame for the Palestinian plight on Israel is ignorant or racist and I stand by that.

As for Israel keeping Palestinian land, Israel has removed all it's forces from Gaza(unilaterally). Just this week Israeli soldiers forcefully removed jewish settlers from the West Bank. Unless the land you refer to is within Israel's own borders, Israel has made many efforts to return the occupied lands to the control of the Palestinian people. They could do more, but groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and surrounding countries like Syria and Lebanon could all be doing a lot more as well. Solely blaming Israel is ignoring all the other problems of a very complicated situation.

Many are also keen to point out how cruel it is for Israel to close it's borders with regions like Gaza because the people require aid that comes through them to survive. They are so busy blaming Israel for that, they forgot that some credit should be given to Israel when the borders are open since the largest single source for that aid is Israel itself.

^ What would Jesus do? good point...

I don't understand how the conservative christian republicans condemn Obama considering sitting down with Hamas and Hezbollah.

Wouldn't Jesus have done the same thing?

The US sold cluster bombs to Israel but made them agree not to use them in civilian areas. Israel apparently violated the agreement in response to Hezbollah rockets raining on northern Israel. CNN clip

The idea that choosing Palin was somehow "putting one over" on people when the marxists are running a closet muslim community organizer with ties to an indicted slumlord, racist "reverend" and domestic terrorist is the real laff. You won't see any on liberalsift, but the last few debates with McCain, B. Hussein stuttered more than an epileptic holding a jackhammer during an earthquake.

Surprising that Maher would address the opinion that he's considered a snob. Maher really does think no one is smarter than Maher.

Janeane - tits or GTFO.

Rushdie - ingrate that radical Muslims tried to assassinate, critical of those going after radical Muslims. Someone give the studio's address to hezbollah.

However, Iran having nuclear weapons does not equal them actually using them.


So your content then to count on their leadership's sense of self preservation to prevent them from using them. Forgive my if I still have my doubts what might be done by a leader who denies the holocaust, publicly calls for 'Death to Israel', and provides funds, training and weapons to Hezbollah.


Condemning Israel in my book is a good thing, their behavior towards Palestinians is horrible


Indeed it is, but I beg you to remember the context. Israel's invasions into Palestinian territory are continually in self defense against rocket attacks from groups supported by Syria and Iran. Most Palestinian deaths are from lack of aid, but Egypt has an even more complete blockade in place than Israel. The question that must eventually come up is why does all the blame get lain on Israel alone? Looking at the spokesmen here is revealing.

Galloway is adamant that Ahmadinejad should not be accused of calling for Israel to be wiped from the map, and yet there are multiple videos of Ahmadinejad calling for 'Death to Israel'. Galloway also claims he has condemned Saddam Hussein since the 80's, and yet there is a video from '94 were he commends Saddam in person for his courage. Be very careful listening to the words of someone like George Galloway who is a proven liar and supporter of truly horrific dictators. It would be extremely ill advised to take any information about the middle east from Galloway as anything but propaganda and outright bold faced lies.

You don't see what Israel's constant calling for the USA to attack Iran has to do with anti-Israeli sentiment in Iran?


So you are saying that Ahmadinejad's calls for "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" are, at least somewhat, justified. At least we know were you stand then.


Israel attacked all of Lebanon and committed war crimes.

They decimated Jenin, too, and murdered hundreds.


Most people accusing Israel of war crimes in Lebanon and Palestine cite sources like Amnesty International. I even agree with that. My issue though is that you would choose to paint such an unbalanced picture. Amnesty International also condemns Hezbollah and Hamas on far more counts of war crimes.

If you really care to pay any attention to history you'll notice that Israel's aggressive foreign policy didn't appear out of a vacuum of non-aggression. Has Israel ever, in it's entire existence, had peace treaties with all of it's neighbors?

I'm all for condemning Israel when it over reacts to rockets hitting their cities. I'm just not keen to ignore the fact that rockets are landing in their cities. Neither will I accept the notion that EITHER such acts are justifiable. But go ahead and ignore all that and one up it even by justifying speeches rallying crowds to chant "Death to Israel". Just don't pretend to be doing it in the name of peace.

[EDIT:grammar]

>> ^rougy:
Yeah - it has nothing to do with Israel and America threatening to bomb the shit out of Tehran for the past twenty years.
I don't recall Iran attacking any of its neighbors in recent memory, but I do recall Israel bombing the shit out of Lebanon, not to mention how it invades the airspace of its neighbors constantly to provoke a reaction.


Yes, let's bring up Israel going into Lebanon to chase out the Hezbollah fighters that Iran and Syria provided arms, funds and recruits to. Sorry, but Hezbollah is a direct example of Ahmadinejad making good on his calls for the destruction of Israel.

As for your other complaints about Israel, I won't even bother dignifying your points by refuting them. I'd instead ask what on earth that has to do with Ahmadinejad's statements from the clip rallying his people with cries for 'Death to Israel'? Are you in some sick, twisted manner justifying such talk?

"Though I'll disagree that the reasons for the Iraq war were intentionally dubious"

I merely stated that the reasons going into Iraq were wrong, mostly because the administration over sold the threat and under sold the actual cost of going into Iraq. I felt like it was fear mongering more then anything else, riding of the events of 9/11, with threats like "Don't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud". There was such flimsy connections drawn between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

But the greatest mistake was the lack of concrete planning for actions after the nation was conquered, that to me is the biggest mistake of the entire campaign in Iraq. ORHA was given a month to figure out how to run a nation, the CPA hired fresh grad students who brought technological know how to a country that could not afford the solutions they pushed forward. The dismantling of the Iraq military forces and de-Baathization. It all seems like dangerous adventurism.

Democratization of the Middle East

This is one factor I really supported with regards to going into Iraq, the region as a whole is full of autocratic and despotic rulers. However Bush's promises never materalized into anything concrete, mostly because they didn't understand the situation on the ground, when Palestine held elections Hamas ended up winning, the new president of Iran, Sadr in Iraq, polling results in Egypt and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The US supports democracy but only on its own terms.

All the talk behind democracy faded after that, and I ultimately believe it was Saudi Arabia and Egypt who killed it, both nations that do not want to see any kind of democracy occurring anytime soon because of the strangle hold they have on power and money withing their respective nations. One of them happens to be the worlds largest oil supplier as well. The largest failing point was when the US sold billion dollars worth of arms to states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt and so on after concerns over Iran.

The following is a comment I left on Dag's profile a while back regarding Democracy struggles in the Middle East in relation to autocratic rule, citing Israel as democratic nation in the Middle East.

I don't know the issue is rather merky when it comes to autocratic rule and Middle Eastern states, I mean for example Kuwait has a parliamentary democracy, and all decisions taken by the Amir have to abide by rulings made by the parliament and the cabinet, all positions that are elected. Women's rights and voting power has been factored in since early 2002 or so.

However politically the country is stagnant, its full of nepotism and corruption, its democratic nature while loved by the populace as it gives me a semblance of influence and most of all free press has seen the country degrade to alot of political infighting and hand wringing when it comes to making decisions with regards to developing the nation and reaching that common cited goal of becoming a "business hub".

Now compare that with nations like UAE, Bahrain, Oman and Saudia Arabia, they all have varying degress of autocratic rule far and above those of Kuwait. However when it comes to economic development, Kuwait is lagging far behind especially when you look at a place like Dubai that doesn't nearly have the same kind of oil wealth that Kuwait has, yet it beating Kuwait year on year with rapid economic growth and development. This is all while at the same time both Dubai and Bahrain are shedding restrictive control over the population via religious doctrine.

This has lead many to ask whether democracy is right for the Middle East as a whole or is it better to be ruled by influential western educated heads of State, Emirs, and Princes? This is a NY Times article on that very issue. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/world/middleeast/06kuwait.html?n=Top/News/World/Countries%20and%20Territories/United%20Arab%20Emirates

I agree Israel's democracy is good, but I also feel that it runs too aggressive because of a cornered rat symptom. Let's not forget that their economic prosperity has alot to do with American economic assistance and leanancy with regards to weapons sales and investment. Its true that actions of the state get questioned but I feel its always after the fact, look at the US, how many statues has the administration broken and other then a change of faces will anything really change? The greatest damage done is not that it was committed but that it gives someone else afterwards more room to do more damage. There is little actual accountability.

My personal wish is for Middle Eastern states to unshackle themselves from religious control, which is not there because Islam wishes it so but because its a great political control apparatus, especially in Saudi Arabia. A secular state with respect to religious freedom like the one I saw in Turkey set up by Ahmed Kamal is very admirable to me, but in all I think the population as a whole in the Middle East is not educated enough on civic rights and responsibility, too reliant on age old tribal control and influence that still manifests itself in the political process.

Biological Weapons

I agree that not many would willing go down that path, the costs of development and more so actual deployment require a national industrial project to be effective enough.

I believe the threat is more based around acquired biological weapons from poorly secured sources like those in Russia. However even then we are looking at small contained actions like those in Japan Subway system by that cult.

With regards to Iraq possessing WMD and Bioweapons I find the case was always put forward not because they possibly existed, but because they had the knowledge. I think is the same reason people high up in the US fear Iran, because nuclear development and weaponization is within their grasp, even if they are not working towards that goal. Its the knowledge that scares them.

I am very familar with Amnesty reports.

The atrocities are IN RESPONSE to Israeli attacks and oppression AND they are justifiable military attacks on occupied land.

Hamas is what you get when you invade an arab land.
Hezbollah is what you get when you invade an arab land.
The IRA is what you get when you invade Ireland.
The ANC is what you get when you invade South Africa.

All of this is IN RESPONSE to occupation and oppression.
IN RESPONSE.

When Israel kills civilians, Hamas kills civilians in return. The difference is that Hamas do it on OCCUPIED LAND.

Hamas can define whatever they want in their charter, are you suggesting we remove the democratic right of a sovreign country just because another country doesn't like what's in their charter? This can be resoved politically, without fighting, but you can't do that without a ceasefire. It's not that I don't believe it, it's that I UNDERSTAND it.

Hamas was created IN RESPONSE to the Israeli occupation. It would not and could not have been elected to power without Israel scattering the Palestinian people with an illegal occupation. The Israeli invasion created the conditions for an extremist government to come to power.

"Israel was only occupying Southern Lebanon to stop PLO attacks on Israel."
Where in the hell did you get that idea from? The PLO was set up to liberate Palestine, when you grow up where I grew up you learn about the PLO when you're 12 years old.

"The only thing Israel has refused is the 'right of return'"
Israel has NOT RESPONDED to THREE mediated calls for a ceasefire.

If you are suggesting that Hamas was set up to invade Israel you are wrong.

You are suggesting that Israel's justification for invading Palestine is Hamas' charter. Yet the occupation LED to Hamas being elected by creating the conditions for an extremist Palestinian government. Hamas has saved more Palestinian lives and fought off more sieges than the PLO. All occupations create the conditions for extremist governments, and historically these have all been resolved when the extremists politicise themselves.

All of the criticisms you lay against Hamas can also be said of Nelson Mandella, the Irish Republicans, and the ANC.

Stop trying to defend your own personal beliefs, open your eyes, educate yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxh4HUDaoaU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpA1f1GZgns

http://inminds.co.uk/palestine-rally-13apr02.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3037117.stm
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/855881.html
http://israels60thbirthday.com/2008/05/13/pro-palestinian-rally-through-london/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/books/12arts-PROPALESTINI_BRF.html
http://origin.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,49971,00.html
http://www.davepearce.me.uk/Palestine/palestine_solidarity.htm
http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-middle_east_politics/union_engagement_4485.jsp



In reply to this comment by bcglorf:

Hezbollah was set up to drive Israeli occupying forces from Lebanon (and it drove MOST but not all of them out in 2000).


More or less, and their mandate is certainly far better than that of Hamas. Israel was only occupying Southern Lebanon to stop PLO attacks on Israel. I'd say that gives some valid reason for being there, but I'd still agree it was wrong. Before you judge Israel alone though, remember the better part of the PLO army in southern Lebanon was there because Jordanian forces had already chased them out of Jordan. Hezbollah has since continued to use southern Lebanon to launch attacks deeper into Israel. Given Hezbollah's strong ties to Syria and Iran though, I think Israel does have legitimate security concerns about just watching Hezbollah build up forces on the border. But more to the point, we were talking about Hamas...


Hamas was set up to drive occupying forces from Palestine.


And I've already told you that Hamas defines Palestine as not just the occupied territories beyond the '68 borders, and not even just the territory outside the '48 borders, but also the entirety of Israel. If you refuse to believe it go read Hamas Charter, and if you still refuse to recognize this I don't see us getting any where.


Israel has refused time and time again to respond to the offer of a ceasefire in return for removing their forces from occupied territory.


The only thing Israel has refused is the 'right of return', they have offered themselves to return back to the '68 borders. Is it really Israel's fault a ceasefire fails when it is most often broken by attacks on Israeli checkpoints or cities?


Amnesty International has even condemned the killings of civilians by Israeli armed forces, and that is a good place to start to learn about what is really going on.


Thanks, others have pointed me to the same report before. You really should go read it, it seems to make it very clear that the vast majority of atrocities committed in Palestinian territory are the result of factional fighting between groups like Fatah and ... Hamas. Amnesty International has also repeatedly condemned Hamas and Hezbollah for using human shields in their tactics. That aught to take out some of the fire in condemning Israel for collateral damages, no?

Hezbollah was set up to drive Israeli occupying forces from Lebanon (and it drove MOST but not all of them out in 2000).


More or less, and their mandate is certainly far better than that of Hamas. Israel was only occupying Southern Lebanon to stop PLO attacks on Israel. I'd say that gives some valid reason for being there, but I'd still agree it was wrong. Before you judge Israel alone though, remember the better part of the PLO army in southern Lebanon was there because Jordanian forces had already chased them out of Jordan. Hezbollah has since continued to use southern Lebanon to launch attacks deeper into Israel. Given Hezbollah's strong ties to Syria and Iran though, I think Israel does have legitimate security concerns about just watching Hezbollah build up forces on the border. But more to the point, we were talking about Hamas...


Hamas was set up to drive occupying forces from Palestine.


And I've already told you that Hamas defines Palestine as not just the occupied territories beyond the '68 borders, and not even just the territory outside the '48 borders, but also the entirety of Israel. If you refuse to believe it go read Hamas Charter, and if you still refuse to recognize this I don't see us getting any where.


Israel has refused time and time again to respond to the offer of a ceasefire in return for removing their forces from occupied territory.


The only thing Israel has refused is the 'right of return', they have offered themselves to return back to the '68 borders. Is it really Israel's fault a ceasefire fails when it is most often broken by attacks on Israeli checkpoints or cities?


Amnesty International has even condemned the killings of civilians by Israeli armed forces, and that is a good place to start to learn about what is really going on.


Thanks, others have pointed me to the same report before. You really should go read it, it seems to make it very clear that the vast majority of atrocities committed in Palestinian territory are the result of factional fighting between groups like Fatah and ... Hamas. Amnesty International has also repeatedly condemned Hamas and Hezbollah for using human shields in their tactics. That aught to take out some of the fire in condemning Israel for collateral damages, no?

Israel is attacking Palestine, and occupying it. Israel is invading Lebanon, and occupying it.

Hezbollah was set up to drive Israeli occupying forces from Lebanon (and it drove MOST but not all of them out in 2000). Hamas was set up to drive occupying forces from Palestine.

It can't be made any clearer than that. Hamas is now the elected government of Palestine with the overwhelming support of its people. Israel has refused time and time again to respond to the offer of a ceasefire in return for removing their forces from occupied territory.

Jesus man, everyone knows this. I am completely exasperated now. Amnesty International has even condemned the killings of civilians by Israeli armed forces, and that is a good place to start to learn about what is really going on.

http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/regions/middle-east-and-north-africa/palestinian-authority







In reply to this comment by bcglorf:

Hamas' charter calls for a withdrawal from all land occupied by Isreal since 1967, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.


No, it doesn't:
Article Thirteen: Peaceful Solutions, [Peace] Initiatives and International Conferences:
[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad...

Plainly Hamas Charter defines Palestine as all of modern Israel in addition to the occupied territories.


That is their legitimate goal and attacks sanctioned by Hamas are against military targets on occupied Palestinian territory. Attacks inside Isreal are not sanctioned by Hamas and are condemned by Hamas.


And yet the most recent school shooting inside Israel was praised by Hamas. That is of course consistent with their Charter since all of Israel is rightfully part of Palestine in their view.

I'll walk through the various truce offers made when I've got time make sure I have the correct sources. I clearly recall Hamas' stance on the 10 year truce to be that it was only acceptable as an interim step to re-claiming all of Palestine. None the less, that's a good step but a lot more went into each effort falling apart.

>> ^bcglorf:
Give me Hitchen's over Chomsky any day. Chomsky makes many very valid points, particularly about comparing atrocities. The problem is he turns around at least twice in this short clip to his own comparisons with Israel. As far as Israel is concerned, Chomsky seems to be too far down the idealist road in condemning Israel. Unless blame can be assigned to Israel from the original war of independence, they've never had any choice for a non-violent existence. Hamas, Hezbollah and their Iranian funders all still refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist in any form. Only an idealist can condemn a nation for violent self defense. Only an idealist can condemn a nation for the inevitable mistakes that come from having all your neighbors perpetually at war with you. Ideals are great, but at some point when applying them to the real world as though it were a vacuum creates atrocities.



Notice that iran doesn't believe in the existence of Israel because it isn't a democratic government because it refutes the Palestinian government.