Urk. Just urk. Even for the Bush Admin this is . . . well, incredible. An overt betrayal of W’s purported commitment to ME democracy. A bloody crime. A monumental cock-up. All in one.
And now Bush wants to make peace in Israel/Palestine before his term ends.
Interesting article. Did you have any evidence that your characterizations of what the article alleges are even remotely true?
For instance, you refer to it as a “crime”. Your article mentions specifically
The rest of it seems to be much of a piece - you claim this is a betrayal of a commitment to Middle East peace, whereas the article states repeatedly that the idea was to replace the terrorist government of Hamas with a government that would renounce terrorism.
On reflection, I was going to do a bit more analysis of the lies and misrepresentations in the article, but it doesn’t seem to be worth the effort. For those who gulp the Hamas terrorist Kool-aid without question, no effort is sufficient. For reasonable folks, what is presented to date is enough.
Regards,
Shodan
Along with mainlining the neocon morphine.
So, nothing.
OK.
Regards,
Shodan
:rolleyes: When one says, “It’s a crime!” that is not always the same as saying “It’s illegal!”
As you know.
No, I said it was a betrayal of W’s avowed commitment to ME democracy, not peace. Hamas did after all defeat Fatah in a free and fair election.
In what sense does this not constitute aiding terrorists, is my question.
Scary that I can’t get upset about this sort of thing. Intellectually, I know it’s really bad shit, and the Bushies had no business arming this sort of outfit. But they’ve done so many outrageous things, it’s hard to get upset about one more. The lot of them should have been impeached years ago. And apparently they’re doing massive domestic wiretapping without warrants. My reaction? An awareness that I should have a reaction. That’s it.
So trying to get the terrorists of Hamas out of the government constitutes aiding them?
Pushing for elections is aiding terrorism? Cutting off funds to organizations that engage in suicide bombings is aiding terrorism?
I think we are venturing into another of RTFirefly’s patented “let’s say things that are so bizarre that they cannot be discussed and win the debate that way” approaches to GD. Fine and dandy - if you define “aiding terrorism” as “trying to get them to live up to their agreement to stop murdering civilians”, then Bush and Co. were aiding terrorism, all right.
Just out of curiosity, what flavor was the Kool-aid?
Regards,
Shodan
In this particular instance Fatah was practicing terrorism.
Of course, they’re not really terrorists, they’re just . . . some guys who practice terrorism . . . or something . . .
Yeah, and they were just on the cusp of passing the Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Nation. Bush’s interference is nothing short of Hitlerish!
There were elections. Hamas won.
And people who win electons are always good, peaceful people.
No - as the last two US elections show.
Still doesn’t give anyone else the right to overthrow an elected govt even if it is engaged in terrorism. In the US case it just highlights yet again, the two-faced hypocrisy.
Why not? Why can’t you fight a war against an elected government? Are elected governments sacroscent?
BTW, elections don’t make a country a democracy.
No, but they are always the people who win elections. If you’re really committed to democracy, which Bush claims to be, you have to be committed to accepting the results whether you like them or not.
I could at least kindasorta understand the thinking behind W’s (and Israel’s) refusal to recognize the Hamas government, but arming their enemies and starting a civil war goes way beyond.
No, you need elections and a genuinely effective government resulting (Iraq has the first but not the second). But no third thing is needed – is it?
You also need a democratic culture, one that believes in freedom of speech, tolerance, moderation and the free exchange of ideas - and most importantly, one that believes in democracy. Do you really believe Hamas will allow another election, or at least one that’ll threaten its power?
Incidentally, Dahlan is a useless, corrupt thug, and always has been. The US were idiots to rely on him… not that Fatah can offer anyone better.
You seem to be saying democracy is impossible in the OT’s – which, if true, can have been no less obvious in January 2006 than it is now, so why did Bush insist on elections?
Because he’s an idiot.
I’m glad we agree on something!