Liz Cheney: Obama’s Language On Israel Goes ‘Much Further’ Than The Bush-Era Road Map For Peace
Liz Cheney: Obama’s Language On Israel Goes ‘Much Further’ Than The Bush-Era Road Map For Peace
During his speech today, President Obama reiterated standing U.S. policy that the expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestine must be ended. “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop,” he said.
On MSNBC this afternoon, former Vice President Cheney’s daughter, Liz Cheney, argued that Obama’s insistence that Israel freeze settlement expansion goes “much further” than the Roadmap to Peace negotiated by the Bush administration in 2002:
MITCHELL: Can you clarify at all a dispute some or among former Bush administration middle east experts and officials as to whether there was a secret promise or an agreement with Israel that Israel could proceed with settlement expansion to accommodate population growth?
CHENEY: It is a very complicated issue and the Road Map does talk about settlements. … But there’s the issue of, in existing settlements, if a family has a baby, are you allowed to build another room in the house? … I think there’s no question that this White House has gone much further in saying to the Israelis, “you must absolutely stop all of it.” And without, in my view, being as demanding of the Palestinians in terms of the security side of this equation.
Watch it:
Cheney is right to note that the Road Map to Peace — negotiated while she served in the Bush administration as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs — “does talk about settlements.” But she apparently doesn’t recall that when the Road Map talks about settlements, it is in the context of clearly stipulating that the Israeli government must freeze all settlement expansion — “including natural growth.” From the Road Map:
Cheney did not address a reported secret deal between former President Bush and Israel allowing some settlement expansion, despite being asked about it by host Andrea Mitchell:
Additionally, it is simply false to say that the Obama administration is not “being as demanding of the Palestinians” with regard to the security of Israel and its citizens. In his speech this morning, Obama made it clear that the U.S. would accept nothing less than full renunciation of violence in pursuit of political objectives on the part of the Palestinians:
Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America’s founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It’s a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That’s not how moral authority is claimed; that’s how it is surrendered.
At another point in the interview, Cheney repeated Eric Erickson’s false claim that Obama equated conditions for Jews during the Holocaust with conditions in Palestine today.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
put a cork in it liz, you lying terrorist
quit trying to scare people with your doomsday bullsh!t
most Americans are not as frightened as your sissified base
GOP = Group of Pussies
June 4th, 2009 at 6:42 pmLiz Cheney: Obama’s Language On Israel Goes ‘Much Further’ Than The Bush-Era Road Map For Peace
– - Why the HELL does anyone care what Liz Cheney has to say about politics or policy? Cripes, can we get Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston to weigh in too? How about the Obama’s dog, Bo?
June 4th, 2009 at 6:43 pmWTF is this woman speaking for? Why is she being given a forum? What expertise does she have beyond nepotism?
June 4th, 2009 at 6:44 pmWho the heck is Liz Cheney besides the daughter of a former vice president? Who cares what she says besides Fox News and Morning Jo?
June 4th, 2009 at 6:45 pm“Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and theAmericans know it.”
Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon to Shimon Peres, October 3, 2001
June 4th, 2009 at 6:46 pmHow did she get such a high position in the State Dept on Near Eastern Affairs if she knows so little about the issues? This has been a major issue for sixty years. Did a relative help her get the job?
June 4th, 2009 at 6:46 pmCould it be that the right wing is this far down on their bench that Liz Cheney is the best pinch-hitter they can send up to the plate?
If so, that’s really sad.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:52 pmDoesn’t the name Cheney keep anyone from believing a damn thing this liar says?
Oh, yeah. Little Billy Kristol. Sorry, I forgot. Some people never have to be correct to be a “pundit” in today’s “librul” media.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:54 pmSince President Obama outclasses his predecessor, in every way, I think we should expect him to “go further”. And what’s more, he will “go further” to restore and redeem our country from the depths that Bushco plunged us into.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:55 pmif a family has a baby, are you allowed to build another room in the house?
Good question, Lizzy.
And if your mother-in-law lives with you and develops a persistent case of diarhea, are you allowed to build another bathroom in the house?
And if your father is a chickensh!t like her dad, are you allowed to build a bunker in an “undisclosed location”?
So many questions, so little time, Lizzy.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:55 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
WTF is this woman speaking for? Why is she being given a forum? What expertise does she have beyond nepotism?
I blame the 24-hour news networks completely. In order to fill the whole day with talk, and in order to avoid dealing with any substantial issues in any depth at all, they need to offer hours and hours of people flapping their gums about whatever is being portrayed as “hot”, whether they have any insight at all to offer. And because of the “we’re not really liberal” fear that motivates the MSM, most of the flapping gums belong to GOPers.
They could spend months researching stories and develop real content that could be spread over hours, but the tv audience in this country simply doesn’t have that attention span — as a result of years of watching insipid shallow “news” on the tv. As a result, they don’t bother to do any research at all, no fact checking to speak of, and they never really confront any of the “experts” they bring on the air in fear of p!ssing them off — because then the “experts” might not be willing to come back on the air and flap their gums for the world to see. As if that would happen! Lose all that attention?
June 4th, 2009 at 6:59 pmWho cares what Lizzy Cheney has to say. She is not an elected official or any kind of official for that matter.
Why is she on TV?
Liz and Dick – 2 of a kind. Lying liars!!!!!
June 4th, 2009 at 7:02 pmHere’s the text of Obama’s speech. I hope you all have popcorn because the upcoming explosion of Reichwhiner’s heads will be quite a show.
http://www.twincities.com/news/ci_12521614?source=rss
June 4th, 2009 at 7:02 pmExcuse me, but doesn’t Liz Cheney’s omnipresence in the media bespeak a relation a little too close with her dad? After all, she shouldn’t be entitled to read classified intelligence reports, so she ought not be considered any more of an expert than any other commentator. Who is pushing this woman? Why does the media give her so much coverage, if it isn’t just to blanket Obama’s actual achievements. She’s given a forum to spray trash all over the news and to minimize news of Obama’s amazing work. Way to go “liberal” media–as if that has ever been the case since the death of Edward R. Murrow…
June 4th, 2009 at 7:02 pmThe Cheney Klan Lie-Mobile is still making rounds.
Liz you and your father are a lying sack of flip-flopping dirt-bags.
Liz when will you and your “evil” father be brave enough to go on The Rachel Maddow Show or Countdown?
June 4th, 2009 at 7:02 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
WTF is this woman speaking for? Why is she being given a forum? What expertise does she have beyond nepotism?
May I add, why is she being asked to appear on anything beyond of FuxNews? MSNBC is having her on? Geez, we can’t get away from these lying Cheneys.
PEACE
June 4th, 2009 at 7:04 pmAmericasback,
June 4th, 2009 at 7:08 pmWell you think we are all “anti-Jewish”, so I don’t trust your judgment.
CHENEY: It is a very complicated issue and the Road Map does talk about settlements. … But there’s the issue of, in existing settlements, if a family has a baby, are you allowed to build another room in the house?
So the answer apparently was to sign an agreement saying they won’t build any more settlements, with an “understanding” from Bush that they could ignore what they signed. If true, that basically amounts to a conspiracy to defraud the Palestinians.
.
if a family has a baby, are you allowed to build another room in the house?
If political organizations in the U.S. continually recruit Orthodox Jews to move to the West Bank to increase their population, are you allowed to build another settlement to make room for them?
June 4th, 2009 at 7:12 pmHey asswipes, proof that it’s going to be harder getting out of Bush’s disaster than some people thought! And the topic is Jewish settlements in Palestinian land.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:13 pmCheney v Olbermann, climbing stairs… Pay Per View!
Dick wouldn’t make it past the first flight…
June 4th, 2009 at 7:14 pmI have no rational reason to listen to Liz Cheney
June 4th, 2009 at 7:16 pmNone of the stimulus money was sent. None.
Sent where?
June 4th, 2009 at 7:17 pmI also have no rational reason to read what Dick Morris writes..and didnt.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:18 pmPeople like the Cheney’s are unconcerned about consequences stemming from fact-checking therefore lying is just fine. Nobody will ever hold them accountable for either their words or deeds.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:18 pmWho cares what Liz Cheney says…about ANYTHING?
Lordy, I hope she runs for political office.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:19 pmDick Cheney would choke olbermann down in 2 seconds.
Actually he’d be sputtering his defense, because he wouldn’t have a softballer like Fox pitching to him.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:19 pmAmericasBack’s anti-Jewish sites probably include the NYTimes, WashPost, LATimes, BostonGlobe, ChicagoTribune, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:21 pmLiz has had a bust day. If you don’t want to watch the video, which is rather long, she makes it clear that we should threaten Iran with military attack.
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/liz-cheney-says-president-obama-wants-h
June 4th, 2009 at 7:23 pmLordy, I hope she runs for political office.
Can’t she just tell her constituents that she’s taking over, because she’s the best person for the job?
It worked for daddy…
June 4th, 2009 at 7:23 pmOops! That should say “busy day”.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:24 pmobamawipe$ Says:
Liz Cheney….Dick Cheney would choke olbermann down in 2 seconds. At least with Liz olbermann stands to last 3 seconds..
***
i didn’t know the cheneys
were both into fellatio.
seems rather strange but
if you say so wipey…
:0
:0
:P
:P
June 4th, 2009 at 7:24 pmdidn’t know the cheneys
were both into fellatio.
I’m curious if that lesbian novel Lynne wrote put the gay idea into her daughter’s head; if she thought she’d please mommy, by becoming gay.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:27 pmpete Says:
Liz has had a bust day. If you don’t want to watch the video, which is rather long, she makes it clear that we should threaten Iran with military attack.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Her kids can be first on the ground — I don’t care if they’re minors. Mine sure as hell aren’t going to be cannon fodder to satisfy this sick f uck woman’s warmongering.
Like father, like daughter. Ugh.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:27 pmobamawipe$ Says”. Meanwhile, to pay for this stimulus spending that didn’t stimulate, Obama had to borrow so much money that long term interest rates have almost doubled since he took office, forcing postponement of abandonment of business expansion and hiring across the board.
=======
Let’s see you arsewipe was it Cheney that just said that he and Bush passed the buck on the auto industry and left for the the next President to handle and Bush just shoved them billions of dollars .
And if it wasn’t for the Bush’s Torture Adminastration, America would not be in such a bad predicament.
Stop watching Fixed News your getting the Liz and “Evil” Cheney syndrome.
What a typical troll you are.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:31 pmbarfly Says:
didn’t know the cheneys
were both into fellatio.
I’m curious if that lesbian novel Lynne wrote put the gay idea into her daughter’s head; if she thought she’d please mommy, by becoming gay.
***
fly,
we have farmer wipey to keep
us up to date on the animal
husbandry of the republican party.
crazy stuff, but why would he lie
about it?
:\
June 4th, 2009 at 7:32 pmI see wipey’s got another distraction crumb he’s trying to roll toward the anthill…
You can do it, wipey! Keep rolling!
June 4th, 2009 at 7:33 pmDamn straight, Zooey. The lil’ warmongers don’t fall far from the tree.
On an off topic note: I was just reading that the Iraqi government is negotiating the purchase of as many as 2,000 tanks from Russia. No cheap oil and no fat arms sales to our newly created ally.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:34 pmDizzy Lizzie’s in a Tizzy. So many lies to tell, so little time. The Bush-Cheney cowboy diplomacy, aka big me – little you, didn’t work so well. Ho, Hum.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:34 pm***
ranus,
wipey isn’t typical.
he’s an icky freak.
:\
June 4th, 2009 at 7:34 pmKeith Says:
AmericasBack’s anti-Jewish sites probably include the NYTimes, WashPost, LATimes, BostonGlobe, ChicagoTribune, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc.
I don’t buy the “anti-Jewish” sites characterization, but before everyone goes all dogpile on AmericasBack . . . I can’t find any authoritative evidence that the quotation is real, and at least some indication that it’s not. Try a Google search, and you may find the first page of results includes a link to David Duke’s website.
The original “source” was supposedly Kol Yisrael radio (as reported by a Palestinian group). According to one report, Kol Yisrael denies Sharon made any such statement. On the other hand, the report is from an organization that looks suspiciously pro-Israeli and features a pat on the back from Alan Dershowitz.
According to them, Georgie Ann Geyer used the quote in one of her articles and subsequently published a clarification after she was challenged to provide a source:
My opinion may be colored by my very negative experiences with Geyer, but I’m inclined to believe that this is a very dubious quotation. It’s not that I don’t believe Sharon could make such a claim, just that there’s no real evidence that he did.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:36 pmSomeone needs to tell Liz Cheney that it’s no longer the Bush-Era. That ended in November 2008. It’s now the Obama Era so she can now sit down, shut up, and go make more babies.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:42 pmPer Pete’s link to crooksandliars, she also says in this interview:
“I think that if we lived in a world where terrorism, and the slaughter of innocents, and Iran’s hegemonic hopes for the Middle East could be met, could be defeated, could be dealt with by sort of hand-holding going forward, then we’d be in a much simpler environment. But these are very, very tough issues. And I was troubled by the extent to which I heard moral relativism.”
Someone check to see if Liz is getting checks from the AEI! That sounds like one of their latest buzz phrases.
Here’s Michael Rubin from AEI’s blog today:
Obama’s Troubling Moral Equivalency
For Obama, however, moral equivalency trumps accountability
June 4th, 2009 at 7:44 pmBadmoonman, I think Bo would add more substance and intelligence to the conversation than Cheney does. . .
June 4th, 2009 at 7:44 pmThat Michael Rubin at the AEI is a real piece of work.
He ends his hit piece on Obama’s speech with this:
Obama will get a standing ovation, and Bush will get scorn. Bush however can look in the mirror and know that he liberated 50 million people and inspired others chafing under dictatorship in Syria, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, and elsewhere. Obama will look in the mirror and admire how handsome he is.
Yes, Obama did look quite handsome today. Apparently he’s driving the right wing nuts!
June 4th, 2009 at 7:49 pmWho is Liz Cheney and why would anyone with an IQ greater than Rush Limbaugh’s give a damn what she says or thinks?
June 4th, 2009 at 7:50 pmAmericasBack Says:
WOW, so sorry. I’m getting a whole lotta negative feedback for saying ‘anti-Jewish’. OK, I should have used the word anti-semite. Again, my sincere appologies.
Negative feedback is for using “anti-Jewish” rather than “anti-Zionist.” There is a huge difference.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:50 pmShe’s right: the language DOES go “much further.”
And that’s a damn good thing! It’s about time!
Beware the Republic-Fascist Party f/k/a Republican Party – they are the greatest threat to the American Republic.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:51 pmleave it to the high end welfare queen liz cheney to overlook the fact that the settlements are on illegally occupied territory and dumb it down to the point you think it’s a home improvement project that the nasty building inspector won’t issue a permit for. she needs to just shut the hell up,.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:52 pmWait, that looks more like a dungbeetle and, oh noes, thats not a crumb…
June 4th, 2009 at 7:52 pmIt’s clear Liz Cheney is far too irresponsible to hold office. It’s one thing to make excuses for the Bush Administration; much of the electorate would probably be willing to just sweep them under the rug and forget them. But proposing that we go back to the dark days of “with us or against us” and “bring it on” pretty much paints you as someone who should be kept as far away from any responsibility as possible, forever.
.
gummble-bee-itch Says:
My opinion may be colored by my very negative experiences with Geyer, but I’m inclined to believe that this is a very dubious quotation. It’s not that I don’t believe Sharon could make such a claim, just that there’s no real evidence that he did.
It seems like an extremely outrageous thing for any politician to say. He could have made the same point without being so insulting if he had merely pointed out that America’s Jewish community supports a strong pro-Israel lobby, and as the U.S. is a democracy, there’s no need to worry about an Israel/U.S. split on any relevant policy decisions. You know, politician-talk.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:53 pmit’s funny top watch crazy lizzie cheney try to salvage the legacy of 43 while on another network her old man’s trashing it and throwing 43 under the bus.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:54 pmgummble-bee-itch, thanks. I remember Georgia Ann Geyer as an apologist for Ollie North and a Contra-lover.
AmericasBack, this quote may be false, but just last night you were calling every TP commenter anti-Jewish.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:56 pm“Bush however can look in the mirror and know that he liberated 50 million people”
he forgot the rest of that statement which reads “from potable water, electricity and medical treatment due to depleted uranium used by 43th cronies in iraq.”
June 4th, 2009 at 7:56 pmNo need to worry, Lindsey has painted the Cheneys as scared little people who made lots of mistakes…overreactive types that shouldnt be in positions of power.
Thanks Lindsey.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:56 pmI’m thinking that policy “goes further” when people follow through with it.
BTW, I had a head injury when I was seven. My fingers sometimes tic because of it, and that’s why wipey has a recommend.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:57 pmAmericasBack Says:
When I first found this site, I thought it was so F’ng cool that there were very intellegent and like-minded thinking people out there. Lately though, I don’t feel welcomed here at all. I’ll probably drop in from time to time – but if I keep getting crap (because I don’t HATE a group of people? WTF?) I’ll go away don’t worry.
Well, we (meaning TP commenters) sometimes have differences in opinion, and sometimes tempers may flare, but I think you should stay. As you said, the intelligent comments are worth reading, and they far outweigh the occasional misunderstanding.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:16 pmAmericasBack Says:
Theology and Religion? What about all the bad mouthing of Israel here? I think that could go down as a theological debate.
I for one (athough I’m not an expert …or Jewish) think that any county (or people) who have gone through what the Jewish people went through in WWII, should have some sympathy. Shit man, Hitler tried to WIPE OUT their ENTIRE RACE (and would have if he won the war). Think about that….
June 4th, 2009 at 10:12 am
In my view, it is not like “50/50 both sides are wrong” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At the end of WWII, the great powers took Palestinian land and created Israel. The Israelis were the terrorists, then. They have been taking Palestinian land ever since due to tremendous military aid from the US. The kidnapping of a single Israeli soldier is excuse enough for the destruction of Lebanon or Gaza. Americans do not even know about the capture of large numbers of the Palestinian legislature (one small example).
If the issue was the Warsaw Ghetto vs the German Army, would you say “both sides are right”? Or Native Americans vs the US Army?
June 4th, 2009 at 8:19 pmI felt that the Jews were being bashed this morning – and I said so.
Wrong! “The Jews” were NOT being bashed. Israeli foreign policy was being criticized! And very rightly so—it should be very very criticized!!!
June 4th, 2009 at 8:26 pmI for one (athough I’m not an expert …or Jewish) think that any county (or people) who have gone through what the Jewish people went through in WWII, should have some sympathy.
Google “Stern Gang.”
June 4th, 2009 at 8:26 pmbarfly,
June 4th, 2009 at 8:32 pmThat looks like a good read. I remember that for a long time, every leader of Israel was a former terrorist (admittedly).
I’m not convinced you’re trying to get along and I haven’t read any of your posts except this one.
Hatred in itself is not bad. I hate what republicans do to our country.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:35 pmAB, relax, I understand your frustration, but you aren’t helping things by reacting
just chill
it’s all good, man
June 4th, 2009 at 8:35 pmI know the Jews were horribly treated 64-79 years ago in Europe. But is that justification for the Palestinians suffering in 2009?
June 4th, 2009 at 8:37 pmAnd Lez Cheney is an expert on every subject because….?
a) She is a unwed mother with a bastard child and a lesbian to boot? Reichwingers calm down, her father is a Nazi.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:38 pmb) Her Mother is an author of a lesbian novel and thus she has great insite into lesbian issues?
c) Her father told her everything he knew about torture and illegal activities he was involved in while he was VICE President?
d) All the above
DING DING DING the answer of course is d.
I don’t think you are a troll. Listen to what I say. I am very honest. I think you are wrong in some kind of false equivalency in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I have met many many liberals in my life who say the same things you are saying.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:39 pmI’m not from Texas and I never criticized your spelling.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:41 pmX, Lynn is the lesbian
Liz is hetero, just evil
June 4th, 2009 at 8:41 pmXrepublican, aren’t you getting Liz mixed up with her sister?
June 4th, 2009 at 8:42 pmdoh, mary
lynn is the wife
put down the bong, tommy
June 4th, 2009 at 8:42 pmAB, it’s really simple, Israel needs to give Palestine back its land.
end of conflict
June 4th, 2009 at 8:45 pmI hope you stick it out. I’ve enjoyed your contributions here lately. I know some folks here can get their backs up in a hurry, without thinking. It helps to develop a thicker skin.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:45 pmWho is this woman and why would anyone ask her opinion?
June 4th, 2009 at 8:46 pmMary is the lesbian. Lynn is the mommy. Liz is the straight wingnut.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:47 pmAmericasBack, I stuck up for you this morning, but is time to get off the poor me trip. Quit whinning when someone calls you out. We all get it from time to time. Move on and keep on fighting for what you believe, but quit whinning.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:47 pmI used to be in the Technohippies:
June 4th, 2009 at 8:47 pmhttp://reverbnation.com/technohippies
Americas,
June 4th, 2009 at 8:47 pmThey are still taking Palestinian land through the advancement of settlements. They still are subjugating the Palestinians. Gaza is like a large prison. The Israelis control the West Bank. Nothing is over. You cannot say “move on”.
I really am not spewing hatred. I really am very very calmly stating well-acknowledged facts.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:48 pmI know, see my correction @ 85
June 4th, 2009 at 8:48 pmnothing hateful about insisting that Israel stop stealing Palestine
June 4th, 2009 at 8:50 pmLiz is just a chip off the old block. Someone has to carry on when Darth Vader kicks the bucket.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:51 pmRantingTommy Says:
nothing hateful about insisting that Israel stop stealing Palestine
That’s what I’m saying. And they should return the land to at least the 1967 borders. It is not history we are talking about, it is continuing.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:53 pm…nobody likes me, everybody hates me (so I’m goin to eat some worms)
I remember that song. We used to sing it at summer camp.
I’m not “slamming you”. I just refuse to yield on this point. The Palestinians are left with no land, no country, no water, no jobs, no security, insufficient housing, cannot afford food—nothing.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:56 pmRantingTommy Says:
AB, it’s really simple, Israel needs to give Palestine back its land.
end of conflict
Well… it’s the main issue, certainly, but I think it wouldn’t be the “end of conflict” we’d all wish. What about the palestinians already in the Israeli jails? What about palestinian extremists who would still find some reason or other to start flinging rockets into Israel? And who would stop Israel if it decided to invade Palestine to stop those rocket-launchers?
Let’s send lots of neutral UN Blue Helmets, put them in charge of the crossings into Palestine, and give them the responsibility of stopping the rocket attacks. Meanwhile, pull Israel out of Palestine (send the settlers somewhere else INSIDE Israel), and return those lands to Palestine.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:56 pm#13 AmericasBack
I believe that Sharon said that Israel controls America. Here’s my proof. You have never seen a newspaper article, a television documentary, or a radio program in America that criticizes anything that Israel does.
Israel could drop one hundred million pounds of bombs on the defenseless Palestinian men, women, and children who live in the refugee camps in Gaza and the “Main Stream Media” in America would say that Israel was “defending herself”. Hmmm….. didn’t that just happen recently?
June 4th, 2009 at 8:57 pmAfter watching President Obama speak, I feel so proud to be respresented by an intelligent, diplomatic President. I couldn’t give a DAMN what Liz Cheney says. Like we always say on the ant farm: “She ain’t nobody!” Liz Cheney and her father Darth Cheney are an embarrassment to America. Shame on them both! Bush Crime Family be damned!
June 4th, 2009 at 9:05 pmLuis Chapulin M Says: “Let’s send lots of neutral UN Blue Helmets, put them in charge of the crossings into Palestine, and give them the responsibility of stopping the rocket attacks.”
How can the Israelis continue to steal Palestinian land and build more settlements with all those nasty Peacekeepers watching?
June 4th, 2009 at 9:05 pmThe notion of a tiny foreign nation “controlling” America is ludicrous. American leaders do what they want, when they want, to anyone they want, and have for a little more than a hundred years.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:06 pmA QUESTION OF JOURNALISTIC DEONTOLOGY!
The recent appearances of the Cheneys over the media as a credible political opponent on par to the Obama administration’s policies and stances raises an issue of journalistic deontology! This is definitely of artificial making. On the one hand, we’ve got a legitimately elected President of the United States who has undergone the rigorous electoral process having to make his case to the American people and coming out successful in eliciting the policies he intends to carry out during his mandate within the confines of the American political institutional structure and process. On the other hand, we’ve got political personae (the Cheneys) who are effectively being presented by the media as a legitimate opponent on par to the Obama administration whereas they do not bear any electoral mandate whatsoever for the political views they profer and with no consequent responsiblity, stake and risk that will arise from any such mandate while the President is tied to them.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:07 pmThe latest case in point, is Liz Cheney’s appearance on the Scaborough Show with her critical and undermining views of the President presented in effect as critical views to the Obama speech delivered in Egypt under the disguise of expressing her opinions. For comments/expressions of opinion on the President’s policies, her views as well as those of her father have been given such a broad artificial reception by the media that runs very contrary to the expression of opinion as we’ve come to know it. These views are rather given almost the same weight and placed on par as the political stances of a legitimately elected president with a legitimate mandate for the policies he is undertaking while the Cheney’s hold no such legitimate mandate and with no accompanying political accountability whatsoever. The issue here is that such attitude by the media is contrary to what we’ve come to expect from normal implicit democratic rules. If the Cheneys had any pretense for policies they wished to be implemented after the Bush Administration, the solution would have simply been for Dick or Liz to run for president. Since they didn’t, it is artificial for the media to strive to present them as a counterweight on par to the Obama administration’s policies well beyong what will be expected for the opinion of a simple citizen that the Cheneys are now notwithstanding their previous political roles. And by the way, by extension is it acceptable that any citizen, no matter what self-righteous pretense they might have, to be artificially given a similar counterweight role on par with the President on any policy issues of the Obama administration while not holding any legitimate political mandate for which they will be politically accountable for their stances? It can be understandable, that the Cheneys can be of direct concern when it comes to matters of direct relation to political issues having to do with Cheney’s role in the Bush administration. But to raise their views on the policies and stances the administration should take on par with the President undermines appropriate journalistic deontology because as we should all know by now “elections do matter”.
What strikes the mind here is that the Cheneys have perfectly understood this “naïvété” of the media and are using this “media confusion about fairness” to artificially strive to extirpate Mr. Dick Cheney from accusations of introducing torture policies during the Bush Administration among other political accusations. Their strategy is very simple. Legally, Cheney can’t make it (they know that secretly). In all courts of law, so-called EITs are definitely torture practices. Besides, the facts as we know them are overwhelmingly against him and the Bush Administration, and Dick Cheney’s contradictions are extensive. The real strategy of the Cheney’s here is totally otherly: turn it “political”. First, saying torture works and was for the good of the country should elicit the fervour of many Americans. Afterall, all what is needed is that a substantial number of Americans polled buy to this argument, and then the issue’s legal underpinning may be undermined. Secondly, posing artificially as the right wing counterweight to the Obama’s administration policies elicits the impression and fervour in some quarters particularly to the right that he is making the President moderate and thus he is political useful. A look at this second political trick shows how the media has effectively been manipulated: knowing fairly well that in his administrative role the President will have to take practical and pragmatic postures with respect to the release of photos of abused detainees as well as on other policies, all what Dick simply have to do is to posit that he is against releasing the pictures and pretend to take critical policy issues postures on the right, making him seemingly a moderating influence on the President. Thirdly, the Cheneys simply have to claim that Obama is following the Bush Administration’s policies he criticized pointing to his strategies in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo. In this case too, the media is manipulated as they ignore the fact that the Obama administration does not have the luxury of starting from scratch as Bush had on all these issues but rather adopts a “course correction strategy” of the situations to bring them as close as possible to what he advocates. The fact is that, the underlying strategy of Dick and her daughter is to make this three steps political trick extirpate Dick from the accusations levied against the former administration. The sad thing is that the media is “naïvely” falling for these political tricks!
AB, respect begins when Israel gets out of the West Bank and Gaza
an occupying force is never respected
feared, but not respected
June 4th, 2009 at 9:09 pmaluceo, one word for ya:
paragraphs
June 4th, 2009 at 9:10 pmSaying that Israel “controls America” is going a bit far. To say that news coverage of Israel has been biased in favor of Israel for quite some time, is fair, I think. It seems to me that the media became an advocate for Israel in the seventies, but that’s just an impression. At the same time, there was a teacher in my sixth grade classroom who seemed to be a spokesman for Israel, and because of that influence I thought Israel was the greatest thing since sliced bread and that their biggest enterprize was growing roses in the desert until I heard the name Vanunu. Then I started paying attention.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:12 pmwhat aluceo said
June 4th, 2009 at 9:13 pmmaybe the residents of the Warsaw Ghetto should have sat down and come to an agreement with the German Army.snark
June 4th, 2009 at 9:14 pmI have to side with RantingTommy, aluceo. I can’t disagree with a thing you posted and mean no offense but, please break things up a bit. Thanks.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:16 pmi quit reading after a couple of sentences
the lack of paragraphs hurt my eyes
June 4th, 2009 at 9:16 pmAmericasback,
When I first started posting here, someone accused me of being a troll. I remember how angry it made me. I can sympathize with your frustration. Don’t leave just yet, you will eventually calm down, and those that gave you grief will realize you are just a progressive frustrated with Republicans.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:22 pm:\
What Bush-Era Road Map for Peace?
June 4th, 2009 at 9:24 pmI can see how my first post here would have read as concern trolling. No biggie.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:25 pmX, Lynn is the lesbian
Liz is hetero, just evil
Mary is the lesbian. Lynn is the mommy. Liz is the straight wingnut.
And Dick is the dick.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:26 pmwiley Says: “Saying that Israel “controls America” is going a bit far.”
There was only one country on Earth who demanded that America invade Iraq a second time. Which country was that?
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/16/aipac/
June 4th, 2009 at 9:27 pmWhat Bush-Era Road Map for Peace?
Actually, GDumbya and Condoleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezza crafted a “road map to a road map to the road map to peace in the Middle East”. I think they both lost interest before they got to “the road map to the road map to peace”. The poor schlubs never were very good at finishing anything that they started. In fact, I don’t even think GDumbya was ever able to bring poor Condoleeeeeeeeeeeeeeezza to climax.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:30 pmIsraelies in the bush admin:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:32 pmRichard Perle
Paul Wolfowitz
Douglas Feith
Edward Luttwak
Henry Kissinger
Dov Zakheim
Kenneth Adelman
I. Lewis Libby
Robert Satloff
Elliott Abrams
Marc Grossman
Richard Haass
Robert Zoellick
Ari Fleischer
James Schlesinger
David Frum
Joshua Bolten
John Bolton
David Wurmser
Eliot Cohen
Mel Sembler
Michael Chertoff
Steve Goldsmith
Adam Goldman
Joseph Gildenhorn
Christopher Gersten
Mark Weinberger
Samuel Bodman
Bonnie Cohen
Ruth Davis
Daniel Kurtzer
Cliff Sobel
Stuart Bernstein
Nancy Brinker
Frank Lavin
Ron Weiser
Mel Sembler
Martin Silverstein
Lincoln Bloomfield
Jay Lefkowitz
Ken Melman
Brad Blakeman
Me too, AB. It sounds like a misunderstanding all the way round. That happens among people who dare to have different standards, styles, and opinions.
And, to be fair, recent troll activity has left many of us a bit edgy and defensive. Personally, I hope you stick around.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:48 pm89 SENATORS URGE PRESIDENT BUSH NOT TO HAMPER ISRAEL
November 16, 2001
According to the New York Times in an article titled “Senators Urge Bush Not to Hamper Israel” (Nov. 17), 89 Senators signed a letter to President Bush urging him not to restrain Israel from retaliating fully against Palestinian violence and to express his solidarity publicly with Israel soon. The letter was a preemptive strike against Secretary of State’s Colin Powell’s anticipated speech on the Middle East conflict intended to silence any direct or indirect criticism of Israel and from offering any hope to Palestinian aspirations of a homeland based on UN Resolutions 242 and 338 which call for Israel to withdraw from all occupied territories it conquered in its 1967 pre-emptive attack on Palestinian and Arab lands. In the letter the Senators praise Mr. Bush for refusing to meet with Arafat and for snubbing him at the U.N. refusing to even shake his hand.
source: mediamonitors.net
June 4th, 2009 at 10:04 pmI wonder if America’s policy in the Middle East would different if the Palestinians had white skin and the Israelis had dark skin.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:10 pmdelafield Says:
I wonder if America’s policy in the Middle East would different if the Palestinians had white skin and the Israelis had dark skin.
It’s not just skin. There’s a lot of religion and other cultural factors at work. Europeans, and others, have a tendency to believe they have a right to control anyone they choose. Europeans have taken it to an extreme through religious and racial fervor plus a lot of greed.
Originally the Mideast was most important for Holy reasons. Then it was important for strategic reasons, especially the security of trade routes. Then we Westerners decide we had a right to their oil.
The French and British managed the larceny until they realized that, in light of the costs of WW2, they couldn’t afford Empires. America, however, established ours but were unable to make the same commitments we made in Europe, Asia, or the Pacific.
We Westerners thought we could get away with proxies like Israel or, in his hayday, the Shah.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:24 pm——————————————————————————–
ralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
RantingTommy Says:
X, Lynn is the lesbian
Liz is hetero, just evil
Mary is the lesbian. Lynn is the mommy. Liz is the straight wingnut.
I think the most frightening thing is Darth Cheney has reproduced 3 times.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:33 pmAmericasBack Says:
But my point is When Do We Move On?
Probably when they stop doing it. We can hardly put Israel destroying entire neighborhoods behind us when they’re still destroying entire neighborhoods, ya know?
Also, moving their citizens into land that’s supposed to be handed over to the Palestinians is a known occupation tactic. It makes it impossible for the other group to have a stable democracy if you’ve moved enough of your people into their neighborhoods to fcuk up all of their elections. This is a known tactic; the “Ulstermen/Orangemen” did the same thing in Northern Ireland, causing that conflict to drag on for many decades longer than it should have. Israel is still doing that too.
How about seizing the operating budget of the Palestinians’ elected authority and refusing to give them operating revenue? How are they supposed to self-govern without a budget? Israel’s doing that right now.
I’d love to be able to set this stuff behind us, because that would mean that they had stopped.
.
This is not to say that the Palestinians bear no blame. Repeatedly they have failed to actually self-govern whenever given the chance. The PLO under Arafat basically operated as if they were still a terrorist organization regarding their finances, socking small sums of cash away to various relatives around the world instead of properly spending it for the good of the people they were supposed to spend it on, and accounting for what they spent.
Then they go and vote for Hamas just because they set up a few soup kitchens or something.
An actually responsible political organization needs to appear among the Palestinians and gain power. I doubt if any “ex-terrorist” organizations are ever going to learn how to actually be responsible, and that’s natural. After all, revolutionaries don’t make good governors. Instead of running for government, Hamas should be supporting a second party which puts forward people who are better qualified and educated for governing, and are interested in doing so properly.
.
AmericasBack Says:
I’ll try to grow some – Thanks Ralph. And Tommy, I’ll take it down a notch …you’re right. Just felt like everything I said and did was jumped on. …nobody likes me, everybody hates me (so I’m goin to eat some worms) lol
It’s just that this issue tends to split the left at present. Stick to your guns, ask no quarter and give none. Next issue up many of the people you’re facing from the other side will probably be on yours.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:43 pmEl, I have the utmost respect for your opinion but I don’t think anyone could organize a government and operate sucessfully under the conditions dictated by Israel.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:50 pmI think it is sick and dangerous that the Cheney clan gets so much air time and so much attention–from all corners of the press. They go on the air, lie, and the commentary regarding their lies bifurcates. These people need to be ignored and marginalized. We need to get to a point where when these people offer their sick lies no one hears them. Furthermore, there needs to come a time when the producers of all these cable yack shows stop inviting them on their shows.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:06 pmI would never presume to speak for ElBruce, who speaks so eloquently, but I think it’s fair to say we can agree that some Palestinians have committed horrible, even unforgivable, crimes. And the Israelis have many to their credit.
We certainly aren’t going to solve the problems amongst ourselves but, many people fail to see the underlying problem and we can help, in our small ways, to bring it to light.
The Palestinians see Israel as a military conquest of the indigenous Arab Israelis. The surrounding nations see Israel as a Western outpost, bridgehead, and proxy in the region. But most of all, and the point that must be hammered home is, the Israelis are foreign, European, invaders and will always be seen as such.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:10 pm“They have never lacked for grievances against the United States. Our belief in freedom of speech and religion…our belief in equal rights for women…our support for Israel… — these are the true sources of resentment…” -Dick Cheney
Ooopsy
June 4th, 2009 at 11:26 pmOh Fred, I agree that neo-cons are rabidly zionist, and many of them have duel citizenship and duel loyalties. On that account, I don’t thin Bush is a Zionist. I don’t remember exactly what he said about Jews once, but it was distinctly anti-semitic.
As far as the invasion of Iraq, I’d say that Israel was an interested partner, but then again, so was Iran.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:29 pmThe difference in language is a difference in intention too. Bush made a promise at the beginning of his administration to have a peace negotiated and in the bag. He did not try. He made a secret deal with Israel that said no matter what his public rhetoric regarding a Palestinian state, he would do little to achieve it. In other words he was not an honest broker for peace. He never intended to be. We had no foreign policy of any kind except war.
Obama wants to treat both Israel and Palestine equally. There is no other way. Palestine deserves a home. Israel has a right to exist. Our equal treatment of both, is the only way to broker such a peace. A back alley deal with one or the other is not only dishonest, but achieves nothing. It keeps the same old stalemate and the same old lack of peace. Bush never cared or understood. Obama does.
It can be done. Remember that Jimmy Carter used his honesty and moral authority to broker a deal between Egypt and Israel. The only one ever achieved in the area. This is more then anyone has ever been able to do. And he did it with being not only pragmatic, but honest. And it still stands today. Maybe Obama can do the same. At least he has to try.
I for one do not want to hear anymore about Bush and his policies. We are the victims of his policy. And who the hell is Liz Cheney?
June 4th, 2009 at 11:33 pmThe quote from O’bama’s speech, pointing out the parrallels between the Palestinian struggles and America’s civil rights movement AND that non-violence won the day, is such a fitting and brilliant point.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:45 pmI hope that message can take seed and grow in hearts and minds in the middle east (and everywhere for that matter).
It is so refreshing to see the President of the US taking a lead in the critical battle for hearts and minds.
Let’s focus on that as much as (maybe more that) any boneheaded remarks by the Republicannibals.
Fred Says:
…I don’t think anyone could organize a government and operate sucessfully under the conditions dictated by Israel.
The PLO was given a lot of leeway, and Arafat pretty much frittered it all away. Granted, Hamas was cut off at the knees instantly.
But I still doubt if a revolutionary and/or resistance movement can evolve into a responsible governing entity without leading to catastrophe. I’m trying to think of an example from history, and I’m drawing a blank.
The best model I can think of would be the relationship between the IRA and Sinn Fein. It seems that what these groups need is a more moderate “political wing” which they can hand off control or participation in exchange for peace, as the IRA did with Sinn Fein. That might actually work.
.
Fred Says:
But most of all, and the point that must be hammered home is, the Israelis are foreign, European, invaders and will always be seen as such.
I can’t get behind any “will always be” statement. As much as history is full of the same-old same-old, it’s also full of surprises. Audacity of hope and all that. Every once in a while, actually trying actually works.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:57 pmLiz Cheney is a war whore.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:08 amThe Roadmap? The ROADMAP? The ROADMAP TO PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST, GEORGE W. BUSH’S MANIFESTO, HIS GIFT, HIS CREDIT TOWARDS WORLD PEACE?
That Roadmap?
If I were you guys…I’d have to think long and hard before bringing THAT disaster up in conversation…eee-YOW!
The stupid! It burns!
June 5th, 2009 at 12:28 amElBruce sed:
“But I still doubt if a revolutionary and/or resistance movement can evolve into a responsible governing entity without leading to catastrophe. I’m trying to think of an example from history, and I’m drawing a blank.”
Oh, man…I guess I’m nearly as terminally skeptical as this thought here, but…I still have to give the U.S. of A. a mention on your list there.
Empires collapse…but our beginning was better than most. And with folks like us, we can claim it back. Matter of fact…maybe I’m not as skeptical as I thought.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:32 amDaddy-O Says:
Oh, man…I guess I’m nearly as terminally skeptical as this thought here, but…I still have to give the U.S. of A. a mention on your list there.
Ha, yeah. That’s the one. But trying to think of any other just underscores what a miracle our founding fathers pulled off. Sometimes you just have to stand in awe of it.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:08 amHaving an ocean between us and the mother country certainly helped.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:21 amIf Liz continues to desire serving her country in some manner.
May I suggest joining the military and serving in Iraq or Afganistan. She could actually serve her country where it needs her the most right now. Her daddy Dick, failed at this with 5 deferments because he had better things to do.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:38 amthe cheney comments simply keeps us from the task – I think we should be seriously debating the elementary approach of a two state solution. It’s simply trying to keep two religious factions in power at the same time. Create a government not based on religion – keep it secular and join the people and establish a government that provides for all.
June 5th, 2009 at 4:18 amCheneys, bushs, and bin ladens are best friends. Remember when cheney gave bin laden a lift home on 9/12?
June 5th, 2009 at 5:30 amI, like most folks on here, know right-wingers lik Liz Cheney promote hate, are corporatatic more than patriotic, constantly distort the truth or outright lie, etc…
Still, as long as the news media keeps playing their messages over and over again without confronting the accuracy of their claims, their propaganda will continue to advance their corrupt causes.
June 5th, 2009 at 5:47 amThe Bush Era roadmap for peace? You mean all that peace we ended up with when the Bush regime stepped down?
I am not sure when aggressive, militant imperialism became the model for peace, but it appears that Obama doesn’t think Israel should continue to prosecute such an agenda while being able to lie about it publicly.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not steal.
By the way, it was the Israeli ancestors that told the world these were God’s commandments.
June 5th, 2009 at 6:38 amOne thing that continues to amaze me is the attitude demonstrated by these “republicans”. They always seem to come from the belief, undamped from losing any election, that they are the rightful governing body in this country, and it’s still “our way or the highway”.
Let’s get real, who really gives a sh*t what George Bush agreed to; he didn’t care even to accept bipartisan Treaty agreements like antiballistic missle agreements, conventions against torture, or even the Geneva conventions. Why should anyone respect anything that the Bush administration did, especially in view of the utter disaster they conferred on the nation and the world.
June 5th, 2009 at 7:43 amTHANK YOU seslisohbet seslichat sesli sohbet sesli chat
June 5th, 2009 at 8:36 amThank You
June 5th, 2009 at 9:35 amseslisohbet seslichat sesli sohbet sesli chat
I think I seeith a forked tongue on Lizard Cheney. Doesn’t she “slither” from network to network with her deadly and treasonis slime?
June 5th, 2009 at 12:50 pmSometimes I wonder if, in an effort to be seen as impartial, the media goes too far – like presenting an unbalanced person like Liz Cheney as proof of (ironically) balance. Although she was in a position to know, clearly she does not know – or just as likely, does not care – what is actually contained in the agreement about which she portrays herself as an expert. It’s time the MSM stopped giving an appearance of credibility to people who have so clearly and so frequently been discredited. Here’s a rule of thumb for MSNBC – if your guest appeared on O’Reilly and didn’t get shouted down, he/she is probably full of sh!t.
June 5th, 2009 at 8:39 pmWHY THE CHENEYS WON’T LEAVE THE SCENE: A QUESTION OF JOURNALISTIC DEONTOLOGY!
June 5th, 2009 at 11:05 pmThe recent appearances of the Cheneys over the media as a credible political opponent on par to the Obama administration’s policies and stances raises an issue of journalistic deontology! This is definitely of artificial making. On the one hand, we’ve got a legitimately elected President of the United States who has undergone the rigorous electoral process having to make his case to the American people and coming out successful in eliciting the policies he intends to carry out during his mandate within the confines of the American political institutional structure and process. On the other hand, we’ve got political personae (the Cheneys) who are effectively being presented by the media as a legitimate opponent on par to the Obama administration whereas they do not bear any electoral mandate whatsoever for the political views they profer and with no consequent responsiblity, stake and risk that will arise from any such mandate while the President is tied to them.
The latest case in point, is Liz Cheney’s appearance on the Scarborough Show with her critical and undermining views of the President presented in effect as critical views to the Obama speech delivered in Egypt under the disguise of expressing her opinions. For comments/expressions of opinion on the President’s policies, her views as well as those of her father have been given such a broad artificial reception by the media that runs very contrary to the expression of opinion as we’ve come to know it. These views are rather given almost the same weight and placed on par as the political stances of a legitimately elected president with a legitimate mandate for the policies he is undertaking while the Cheney’s hold no such legitimate mandate and with no accompanying political accountability whatsoever. The issue here is that such attitude by the media is contrary to what we’ve come to expect from normal implicit democratic rules. If the Cheneys had any pretense for policies they wished to be implemented after the Bush Administration, the solution would have simply been for Dick or Liz to run for president. Since they didn’t, it is artificial for the media to strive to present them as a counterweight on par to the Obama administration’s policies well beyong what will be expected for the opinion of a simple citizen that the Cheneys are now notwithstanding their previous political roles. And by the way, by extension is it acceptable that any citizen, no matter what self-righteous pretense they might have, to be artificially given a similar counterweight role on par with the President on any policy issues of the Obama administration while not holding any legitimate political mandate for which they will be politically accountable for their stances? It can be understandable, that the Cheneys can be of direct concern when it comes to matters of direct relation to political issues having to do with Cheney’s role in the Bush administration. But to raise their views on the policies and stances the administration should take on par with the President undermines appropriate journalistic deontology because as we should all know by now “elections do matter”.
What strikes the mind here is that the Cheneys have perfectly understood this “naïvété” of the media and are using this “media confusion about fairness” to artificially strive to extirpate Mr. Dick Cheney from accusations of introducing torture policies during the Bush Administration among other political accusations. Their strategy is very simple. Legally, Cheney can’t make it (they know that secretly). In all courts of law, so-called EITs are definitely torture practices. Besides, the facts as we know them are overwhelmingly against him and the Bush Administration, and Dick Cheney’s contradictions are extensive. The real strategy of the Cheney’s here is totally otherly: turn it “political”. First, saying torture works and was for the good of the country should elicit the fervour of many Americans. Afterall, all what is needed is that a substantial number of Americans polled buy to this argument, and then the issue’s legal underpinning may be undermined. Secondly, posing artificially as the right wing counterweight to the Obama’s administration policies elicits the impression and fervour in some quarters particularly to the right that he is making the President moderate and thus he is political useful. A look at this second political trick shows how the media has effectively been manipulated: knowing fairly well that in his administrative role the President will have to take practical and pragmatic postures with respect to the release of photos of abused detainees as well as on other policies, all what Dick simply have to do is to posit that he is against releasing the pictures and pretend to take critical policy issues postures on the right, making him seemingly a moderating influence on the President. Thirdly, the Cheneys simply have to claim that Obama is following the Bush Administration’s policies he criticized pointing to his strategies in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo. In this case too, the media is manipulated as they ignore the fact that the Obama administration does not have the luxury of starting from scratch as Bush had on all these issues but rather adopts a “course correction strategy” of the situations to bring them as close as possible to what he advocates. The fact is that, the underlying strategy of Dick and her daughter is to make this three steps political trick extirpate Dick from the accusations levied against the former administration. The sad thing is that the media is “naïvely” falling for these political tricks!
The Bush era road map for peace?
Is that like the Cheney torture retirement home for seniors?
June 6th, 2009 at 1:44 amSpeaking of George W. Bush:
On June 10, 2009, “THE DISSEMINATING MACHINE” will start to disseminate thousands of copies of the post indicated below onto the Internet at lightning-like speed. By the end of June, one will be able to go to Google, type “George W. Bush continuously criminally stalked Margie Schoedinger to the point that she could not get away from it, and she committed suicide in desperation to escape: he murdered her,” hit “Enter,” and find 1,000 or more copies indicating content of the post indicated below. If not—it would only be because the name “George W. Bush” has become substantially less popular on the Internet, and searches relating to “George W. Bush” would thus have turned up less results.
EMERGENCY! EMERGENCY! EMERGENCY!
NOTICE! NOTICE! NOTICE!
If anyone believes that any non-Jewish Caucasian U.S. president within the next few decades has murdered any racial minority in the disgusting way George W. Bush murdered Margie Schoedinger, please contact “THE DISSEMINATING MACHINE” immediately (by leaving one’s complaint at http://andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot.com/2009/01/online-anti-bush-educational-scholastic.html “Post a Comment”), and “THE DISSEMINATING MACHINE” will disseminate thousands of copies of the relevant scandalous presidential information onto the Internet at lightning-like speed (including worldwide dissemination into numerous foreign countries if necessary—in the case that any non-Jewish Caucasian U.S. president has murdered “NUMEROUS” racial minorities in the way George W. Bush murdered Margie Schoedinger, AND the murders can be proved). The lovely, beautiful, and great countries of Russia and China are always by default informed of whatever scandalous presidential information—thousands of copies (general dissemination onto the Russian and Chinese Internet, dissemination into Russian and Chinese legislative and executive government units, Russian and Chinese national-security government units, Russian and Chinese federal police units, etc.). Copies in Russia and China (general foreign Internet dissemination) shall indicate that the presidents of Russia and China are to be immediately informed of the information relating to scandal(s).
COPY OF POST OF JUNE 2009:
SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL!
EMERGENCY! EMERGENCY! EMERGENCY!
George W. Bush continuously criminally stalked Margie Schoedinger to the point that she could not get away from it, and she committed suicide in desperation to escape: he murdered her.
“In her suit [against George W. Bush], Margie Schoedinger states that George W. Bush committed sexual crimes against her, organized harassment and moral pressure on her, her family members and close relatives and friends. As Schoedinger said, she was strongly recommended to keep her mouth shut. In addition to that, three unknown men attempted to kidnap her on October 26, 2000. . . . Furthermore, she alleges that George Bush ordered to show pressure on her to the point, when she commits suicide” (http://www.drizzten.com/blog/2002/12/).
“One of those very least were George Bush’s personal complicity in the death (murder to be precise) of my friend Margie Schoedinger in September of 2003” (Leola McConnell (Nevada Progressive Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010). http://leolaforussenate.blogspot.com/2008/02/leola-mcconnell-for-us-senate.html).
Leola McConnell is correct: George W. Bush applying pressure (continuously criminally stalking Margie Schoedinger) purposefully to force Margie Schoedinger to commit suicide does in fact constitute murder.
George W. Bush is a racist hate criminal and hates black people (indicated at andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot.com).
BEWARE: If the president of the United States hates one for whatever reasons, he can continuously criminally stalk one to the point that one cannot get away from it, and one ultimately commits suicide in desperation to escape—he can murder people in this way.
George W. Bush is getting away with his murder of Margie Schoedinger—with no sheriff, court, or prosecutor to uphold the rule of law.
George W. Bush’s method of murdering Margie Schoedinger cannot exist in a vacuum: he must have murdered other people in the same way.
George W. Bush should confess, come out with the names of all of the people whom he murdered in the disgusting way he murdered Margie Schoedinger, undergo execution, and accordingly find himself at the intersection where he would be free.
(There are thousands of copies of the information above on the Internet. It exists very extensively in all major search engines. Please feel free to go to any major search engine, type “George W. Bush continuously criminally stalked Margie Schoedinger to the point that she could not get away from it, and she committed suicide in desperation to escape: he murdered her,” and hit “Enter.”)
June 6th, 2009 at 1:53 am_______________
Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
(a.k.a. “THE DISSEMINATING MACHINE”)
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
film izle
June 6th, 2009 at 3:32 pmonline film izle
sinema izle
film seyret
film
internetten film izle
porno film izle
porno izle
sex izle
porno
porno film
sex
sikis
filim izle
filmler
izlesene
izle
okey
oyna okey
giyim
yazlik giyim
kozmetik
film izle
klip izle
müzik
Sesli Sohbet
June 7th, 2009 at 4:10 amSesli Chat
Görüntülü chat thanks thinkprogress
I knew he would still be wallpapering this thread. I take the Holocaust seriously enough not to wear it out. I am not nor have I ever been anti-semitic. I’m agnostic. Why in the world would I be anti-semitic? The assertion that I would “forget” or approve of any persecution and systematic murder is anti-social.
June 7th, 2009 at 12:05 pmSesli Chat
Sesli Sohbet
SesliChat
SesliSohbet
Thanks for your remarks buddies; Aluceo reposting with paragraphs!
WHY THE CHENEYS WON’T LEAVE THE SCENE: A QUESTION OF JOURNALISTIC DEONTOLOGY!
The recent appearances of the Cheneys over the media as a credible political opponent on par to the Obama administration’s policies and stances raises an issue of journalistic deontology! This is definitely of artificial making.
On the one hand, we’ve got a legitimately elected President of the United States who has undergone the rigorous electoral process having to make his case to the American people and coming out successful in eliciting the policies he intends to carry out during his mandate within the confines of the American political institutional structure and process.
On the other hand, we’ve got political personae (the Cheneys) who are effectively being presented by the media as a legitimate opponent on par to the Obama administration whereas they do not bear any electoral mandate whatsoever for the political views they profer and with no consequent responsiblity, stake and risk that will arise from any such mandate while the President is tied to them.
The latest case in point, is Liz Cheney’s appearance on the Scarborough Show with her critical and undermining views of the President presented in effect as critical views to the Obama speech delivered in Egypt under the disguise of expressing her opinions.
For comments/expressions of opinion on the President’s policies, her views as well as those of her father have been given such a broad artificial reception by the media that runs very contrary to the expression of opinion as we’ve come to know it. These views are rather given almost the same weight and placed on par as the political stances of a legitimately elected president with a legitimate mandate for the policies he is undertaking while the Cheney’s hold no such legitimate mandate and with no accompanying political accountability whatsoever.
The issue here is that such attitude by the media is contrary to what we’ve come to expect from normal implicit democratic rules. If the Cheneys had any pretense for policies they wished to be implemented after the Bush Administration, the solution would have simply been for Dick or Liz to run for president. Since they didn’t, it is artificial for the media to strive to present them as a counterweight on par to the Obama administration’s policies well beyong what will be expected for the opinion of a simple citizen that the Cheneys are now notwithstanding their previous political roles.
And by the way, by extension is it acceptable that any citizen, no matter what self-righteous pretense they might have, to be artificially given a similar counterweight role on par with the President on any policy issues of the Obama administration while not holding any legitimate political mandate for which they will be politically accountable for their stances? It can be understandable, that the Cheneys can be of direct concern when it comes to matters of direct relation to political issues having to do with Cheney’s role in the Bush administration. But to raise their views on the policies and stances the administration should take on par with the President undermines appropriate journalistic deontology because as we should all know by now “elections do matter”.
What strikes the mind here is that the Cheneys have perfectly understood this “naïvété” of the media and are using this “media confusion about fairness” to artificially strive to extirpate Mr. Dick Cheney from accusations of introducing torture policies during the Bush Administration among other political accusations. Their strategy is very simple. Legally, Cheney can’t make it (they know that secretly). In all courts of law, so-called EITs are definitely torture practices. Besides, the facts as we know them are overwhelmingly against him and the Bush Administration, and Dick Cheney’s contradictions are extensive.
The real strategy of the Cheney’s here is totally otherly: turn it “political”. First, saying torture works and was for the good of the country should elicit the fervour of many Americans. Afterall, all what is needed is that a substantial number of Americans polled buy to this argument, and then the issue’s legal underpinning may be undermined.
Secondly, posing artificially as the right wing counterweight to the Obama’s administration policies elicits the impression and fervour in some quarters particularly to the right that he is making the President moderate and thus he is political useful. A look at this second political trick shows how the media has effectively been manipulated: knowing fairly well that in his administrative role the President will have to take practical and pragmatic postures with respect to the release of photos of abused detainees as well as on other policies, all what Dick simply have to do is to posit that he is against releasing the pictures and pretend to take critical policy issues postures on the right, making him seemingly a moderating influence on the President.
Thirdly, the Cheneys simply have to claim that Obama is following the Bush Administration’s policies he criticized pointing to his strategies in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo. In this case too, the media is manipulated as they ignore the fact that the Obama administration does not have the luxury of starting from scratch as Bush had on all these issues but rather adopts a “course correction strategy” of the situations to bring them as close as possible to what he advocates.
The fact is that, the underlying strategy of Dick and her daughter is to make this three steps political trick extirpate Dick from the accusations levied against the former administration. The sad thing is that the media is “naïvely” falling for these political tricks!
June 8th, 2009 at 8:11 am