This is a featured article at Time.com, and I don't agree with it all, but it does point out some major mistakes that we can all learn from, hopefully. It's a critic that has a conservative bent, in a few spots, but makes much sense in others, and worth reading, I think, by all. Link to article below:
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 37
I don't think he ignored the Palestinians, they didn't want peace then and they still don't want peace. It's a matter of record that most Palestinians want every Israeli dead. Not gone or off the questioned lands, dead.
Was Iraq a threat to the US. Possibly, a very strong possibility. After 9//1 showed the thugs and tyrants of the world the US could be hit, it could have opened a can worms that we would still be dealing with. Saddam has more of the blame in Iraq being invaded than anyone else. If he had allowed the UN Inspectors free access, as he agreed to 1991, then he would most likely still be in power.
Everyone misjudged Iran, but to blame Bush for refusing the "Olive branch" to a nation known for openly supporting terrorists, is not a mistake, but a good move.
The 4th reason is so pathetic, it doesn't deserve more than a sentence.
I was under the impression that Bush was always reaching out to muslims. He even lied calling Islam a peaceful religion. I could understand why some people would be upset that Bush waged a war on terror, especially in the Middle East and muslims. There are quite a few terror groups that are from the region and preach Islam.
It really looks more like another attack piece than showing anything useful or new. Political grandstanding by the media, is anyone really surprised?
Well, I had thought our nation could not of done worse than electing George Bush. I stand corrected.
1. Who has made any progress with the Israel/Palestinian effort? In 1948 when the U.N. recognized Israel they also offered Palestinian statehood but the Palestinians instead chose to kill Israelis. Every "Peace" award giving for Mid East "peace" is absolutely worthless, how many times are we going to award some one for "solving" the Mid East problems. It should be called the Mid East Temporary ceasefire before we start the killing again award. That would be more accurate. I also remember a "Roadmap to Peace" by Bush with the promise of a Palestinian state at the end but Arafat derailed that.
2. Nuff said on this. Everyone knows which camp their in.
3. " Iranians reelected moderate President Mohammed Khatami" moderate compared to what? Lets remember, iran is known around the world for state sponsored terrorism. They fund much of the worlds terror organizations. Also they had been working on gaining the bomb for 18 years in secret. And what exactly was there to "rebuff"? Is this guy trying ot say that every thing was good until Bush called them the "axis of evil" and then they went off the deep end? More likely they have been off the deep end since 79'.
4. I guess if you ignore the last 60 years of Arabs trying to wipe Israel off the map then yea, I guess you could say Bush has made life harder for them since Arafat died. I guess.
5. This guy is a schmuck. Because Bush might have used the word "crusade" is the reason for al this? He means to tell us that we have to be conscious of 1000 years of world history when we speak to the middle east? We have to be wary of all of that history so we do not offend the "arab street" with the incorrect use of any given word because they might be offended by something? This just shows his ignorance of what the crusades actually were and of most everything else he is writing about.
But I do like the way he compliments Clinton in the beginning of just about every point. This is nothing more than a know nothing Bush basher posing as a journalist.
And you are nothing but a know nothing Bush lover, posing as a commenter. Seems we know who's comments are higher valued by Time, anyway. Just thought I'd put in your disclaimer, since you want to state his.
You decided to take it upon yourself and add a disclaimer to the writer of the article, and I decided to apply an equally valid one to your comments, which made no sense either, just as his article made no sense to you. I see nothing dope like about it, especially since your analysis was pretty pathetic. I guess instead of leaving it at that, I will have to analyse your comments in depth.
1. Who has made any progress with the Israel/Palestinian effort? In 1948 when the U.N. recognized Israel they also offered Palestinian statehood but the Palestinians instead chose to kill Israelis. Every "Peace" award giving for Mid East "peace" is absolutely worthless, how many times are we going to award some one for "solving" the Mid East problems. It should be called the Mid East Temporary ceasefire before we start the killing again award. That would be more accurate. I also remember a "Roadmap to Peace" by Bush with the promise of a Palestinian state at the end but Arafat derailed that.
Doing nothing is not the way to make progress, and progress had been made. There was a time not too long ago that the two sides would not even talk, but hey, I'm talking to a neocon, so that means nothing. Talking is always bad. And as for that road map to peace, he threw it out there, and let it die a quick death without any effort to implement it, like he did with a lot of things he didn't want to deal with, but wanted to be seen as acting on.
2. Nuff said on this. Everyone knows which camp their in.
And well you should skate over the invasion of Iraq, as it is the one where your boy made his biggest and baddest grievous errors. No consideration of anything but their short sighted perfect outcome could dissuade them from the folly of their disastrous PNAC inspired fiasco. From the start, their arrogance foretold the outcome.
3. " Iranians reelected moderate President Mohammed Khatami" moderate compared to what? Lets remember, iran is known around the world for state sponsored terrorism. They fund much of the worlds terror organizations. Also they had been working on gaining the bomb for 18 years in secret. And what exactly was there to "rebuff"? Is this guy trying ot say that every thing was good until Bush called them the "axis of evil" and then they went off the deep end? More likely they have been off the deep end since 79'.
More moderate than what we have now, for sure. What is it with Neocons that the idea of talking to an enemy and finding common ground is a mortal sin. It's the way you guys practice politics, and spills over into your foreign policy. So now, we've seen where that leads in politics AND in foreign policy, so don't you think that a second look at the whole theory is overdue? Talking first hurts nothing and opens up opportunities, not talking closes any hope of diplomacy, and hastens war.
4. I guess if you ignore the last 60 years of Arabs trying to wipe Israel off the map then yea, I guess you could say Bush has made life harder for them since Arafat died. I guess.
Destabilising the region does not, and cannot, bode well for Israel. Last 60 years aside, a grudging, and periodically broken truce is preferable to the alternative.
5. This guy is a schmuck. Because Bush might have used the word "crusade" is the reason for al this? He means to tell us that we have to be conscious of 1000 years of world history when we speak to the middle east? We have to be wary of all of that history so we do not offend the "arab street" with the incorrect use of any given word because they might be offended by something? This just shows his ignorance of what the crusades actually were and of most everything else he is writing about.
You know, more than anything else you said this shows your incomprehension of the situation and ignorance of the culture. The day Bush did this, I swear I heard cries of jihad in one deafening voice, all over the mid east, because when you know the history, you know that it's not just a word to those people, it's a call to holy war. You heard crusade, they heard him declare war on Islam. Is it right, no. Is it true, largely yes. We pay to have our leaders advised by supposedly learned men, but they can't make someone listen, I guess.
1. We should ignore the Palestinians as long as they keep the extermination of Israel in their charter. What did all the cozing-up to Arafat rteally get Israel? Nothing! What we (the U.S.) needs to do is back off Israel and let them handle it. Last man standing wins - and you can bet it won't be a Palestinian Man on his feet.
2. Bush invaded Iraq with Congressional approval and UN Security Council acquiescence. Even in the hard times they have now, Iraqis still think they're better off than they were under Saddam's boot.
3. This point is totally asinine. Khatami was a goner when he started, if he had accepted the "olive branch" he would have been gone sooner. In any event, we don't negotiate with terrorists and that's what Ahmadinejad is.
4. This point just illustrates how nutty career State Department employees really are.
5. To alienate someone, theyhad to be with you to begin with. Nothing from nothing still leaves nothing.
But hey, it was a Time article, I dodn't expect anything else.
The Palestinian authority only want one thing, to wipe Israel off the map, "from the river to the sea", they want all Israelis dead or subjugated. That has been their desire from day one till now. And it has very little to do with the establishment of the "Zionist state". The only reason they or any Arab state even talk to Israel is because they keep getting their collective ass kicked by Israel. A lot of talking has gone on but people are still being killed for just being Jewish. The Palestinians can have a state any day they desire by doing one thing, recognize Israel.
2. "Nuff said on this. Everyone knows which camp their in." What else is there to say that hasn't already been said? What, is there something to say that will change your mind?
It really isn't important that Khatami was a moderate. The ruling mullahs run the country. Talking with iran has done so much in regards to their nuclear ambitions hasn't it? Yea it has really, they talk, we talk, Europe talks, then they flip a great big bird and say lets talk some more, later, we're busy developing the bomb right now.
4. "Destabilising the region does not, and cannot, bode well for Israel. Last 60 years aside, a grudging, and periodically broken truce is preferable to the alternative."
Really, "last 60 years aside" Seems history reflects that "grudging, and periodically broken truce" came about only because Israel kicked ass on each and every nation seeking it's destruction, collectively, several times. Israel is attacked every day, since 1948 by states ruled by insane regimes and you consider the region "stable"?
5. Who is uninformed, and who is a little too full of themselves? "I swear I heard cries of jihad in one deafening voice, all over the mid east, because when you know the history, you know that it's not just a word to those people, it's a call to holy war." Did it echo in there? Who are you kidding? How pompous can you be? Do you always wear the tin foil hat? You should have run to the White House and told Bush what to do then, maybe this is all your fault? And since when did they need a new reason to hate us?
This guy had nothing to say bu tif it feeds your hatred, go for it.
Gord Noseramus, do you ever think for yourself or do you need to read from the talking points everyday?
You talking about a grown up discussion after all the drive by insults you have laid on many of my articles is like a whore yelling rape, clutching a twenty in her hand.
So, a discussion is with people who agree and disagree with your stated opinion. That is what gather is about I believe, discussion. But all too often disagreement is attacked with insults, as you so aptly prove in this very article with your response to my first post. I commented on the article, not you, and you attacked me as you are wont to do instead of furthering the discussion. And your friend Gourdo is another good example.
Well, hopefully the next time we meet it will be on a more civil level. Good luck.
As you said, "You can lead a horse to water,,,,,"
you can shove the twenty, if there is any room left next to your head.
and per Mike O .....
It really looks more like another attack piece than showing anything useful or new. Political grandstanding by the media, is anyone really surprised?
My answer would be no. They probably learned it from the best. (Thinking Katrina, Abu Gharib, Terry Schiavo....)
Suggesting my head is placed squarely in my butt is one of those under appreciated sarcastic comments you say are not insulting? My, you are funny, and oh so not insulting. Thanks, proves every thing I've said so far. To suggest that you came here to discuss in good faith anything, given your previous endeavours was asking that I give you huge benefit of the doubt you didn't deserve. I will cherish the indignation you responded with though, it was almost genuine. Thanks for the freebie, I will keep the twenty. For a whore, you have a kind heart.
"just Joe,
And you are nothing but a know nothing Bush lover, posing as a commenter. Seems we know who's comments are higher valued by Time, anyway. Just thought I'd put in your disclaimer, since you want to state his. " without actually furthering the discussion. But this is what you do.
Have a nice life.
So, you think you should be able to dismiss the writer's credibility, and not have your's examined at all? I think not. Your views come from a very partisan place, and that is why you found his credibility lacking, because of your bias. It was only fair to the writer that anyone viewing the piece knew where you were coming from, as well. When you said this:
"This is nothing more than a know nothing Bush basher posing as a journalist."
it was only fair that this was said:
"just Joe,
And you are nothing but a know nothing Bush lover, posing as a commenter. Seems we know who's comments are higher valued by Time, anyway. Just thought I'd put in your disclaimer, since you want to state his. "
And when in the hell do you get off speaking for other people? Who deemed you all knowing in respect to others views. When I need you to put in a disclaimer for me I'll let you know. You have no right to issue a "disclaimer" for anyone else but yourself. This is the arrogance of the left, all knowing, never wrong. You cannot see past "I hate Bush and if you disagree I hate you also" mentality. This guy is a lazy "journalists" and has nothing of worth to say about the topic or the region.
Well, you pretty much are a know nothing Bush lover not posing as anything but an ass, it would finally appear. Where do I get off commenting on your slant on things? I don't need your permission when you come in, make a bunch of asinine comments, dismiss the whole thing like you are the final word on anything. I'm supposed to give your ignorant butt homage or something? Fraid not, because you are just another sour grape eating, bully my way around because I'm in mourning I got my loser butt kicked at the polls, ignorant neocon . You want to make comments and put your opinion out there, there are going to be people that notice your stupidity is showing, especially when it is. You can't handle that, perhaps you should STFU in the first place.
You are yet again wrong. I stated you have no right to issue a "disclaimer" for anyone but yourself, you are free to comment, even free to try to discuss like an adult but you cannot issue a disclaimer for another (look up the word). Especially someone you do not know. It's a big concept, maybe when you get older someone will explain it in terms you can understand. You really are an angry schmuck, sad. Last free gather point for you son.
Well, I think I did, didn't I? Get over yourself. Nothing I said wasn't true. You may have disagreed with everything in the article, but you did so because of your preconceived opinions, not because it had no merit, so someone needed to comment on your bias, Since it was my place, as the publisher of the article, I did. I'll do it again if you come in and dismiss out of hand something you just don't agree with. Now, don't go away mad, just........No, go away mad, I could really care less.
Subjected reading.
The Constitutions of These United States.
The Bill of Rights.
Executive orders---can be found by going here. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html
The Federal Register. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/publications/
The U.S. Code http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/
How your congressman voted http://votesmart.org/index.htm This web site has a host of information---and guess what, it's all fact...
Time magazine, not the NYT, and he was doing just fine with his critic, as it is his right to have an opinion, until he dismissed it out of hand by condemning the writer as just another bush basher. When you dismiss out of hand the writer's credibility and bias, then you had best be able to handle the same kind of criticism of your own credibility and bias. That was my point. I have prior experience with Mr. just Joe, and I know his bias well, so I felt it only right it be commented on. The very thing he objected to, he had already done, in dismissing the writer for bias. I'll say it again, and I'll do it again should the same situation arise again. Thanks for your comment, though.