It's Pat!

Smiling racist Pat Robertson was on Imus in the Morning the other day, and of course he was discussing the crisis in the Middle East. Robertson must be very excited these days because the return of Jesus, amongst all of these issues, is oh so imminent. When this does happen, because surely, IT'S GONNA HAPPEN, there will be no more Jews and/or Muslims. So it's not so crazy to think that Robertson, with all his great insight, actually does have a great point about the situation in Mesopotamia.

Robertson was telling Imus that the United States has no choice but to support Israel completely. Because we have our own platform of not negotiating with terrorists, we cannot expect Israel to negotiate with them either. Robertson claims the US has no "wiggle room," and no area where we can negotiate, since we are so entrenched with the Israeli side. Now I'm sure this is tough for Robertson, having no true love for either Jew or Muslim, but he probably is more concerned with the Jewish side since they have more power in the US. Being that Robertson is a conservative, and his only true care is self-preservation/success, he's going to more likely side with the Jews. With that said, his comments about having no "wiggle room" is right on the money.

The reason we have no "wiggle" is because President Bush operates in total absolutes. He does this to establish himself as a man who says what he means, and means what he says. Never will he go back on something he said. That'd make him a flip-flopper, and you know what that means.

President Bush is an image guy, with no substance. All he had to go on was his hard-driving, never-wavering, attitude, persona, and word. Therefore, when he said, "We don't negotiate with terrorists..." he really REALLY meant it. He never will. Therefore, no wiggle room, being that everyone in the Middle East, is afterall, a terrorist. Creating Bush's image was more important than fixing world problems, and to go back on that image now would leave this President looking completely naked. His entire "thing" is based on strength, so to negotiate one of his core beliefs would take that strength away (of course, conservative commentators would claim that he's now doing what everyone wanted him to do, and therefore he's right to do so...making them wrong all the other times. Story for another day).

So many Bush supporters wondered why the US even needs to negotiate with other countries (they used to call my show). So many of these people couldn't understand the point of diplomacy. They didn't know what it meant, or why it was necessary. Never saw a reason for allies. Well, I bet a few of them can see a reason for diplomacy now. A bet a few of them can see the stupidity of being a man of only absolutes. Kennedy had absolutes, but he also had diplomacy. Nixon had both. Clinton had both. Reagan, while image driven, of course, had both.

These days you can't really get away with back channel diplomacy because our media is everywhere, all the time. Back in Reagan's day when they were creating the image of strength, you could get away with more. Recreating that image, using Bush, a man who couldn't stack up with Reagan on Ronnie's worst day was/is a much tougher thing. Now we all suffer together, and have no idea what's to come. Because again, building this President up to make him seem competent was much more important than solving real world issues.

Clinton, Reagan, and Carter worked tirelessly to solve problems in the Middle East. They ignored the neo-cons at the end of the day, and of course, negotiated, albeit at times fruitlessly. However, they understood the importance of diplomacy. They understood the importance of making both sides think that we, the United States, were on their side on at least some level. They were hopefully moving the world toward peace. Of course, the image conscience Republicans could never let success, or the attempt at success stand. Clinton's promotion of Middle East peace during his last days was viewed as a "legacy building" by those on the right. LEGACY BUILDING! Even if it was, he was still doing the work! But winning battles to maintain power at home was/is more important than fixing real problems.

These idiots have created more war, uncertainty, and enemies than we ever could imagine. And of course, have left us no wiggle room to fix the problem. Republicans are even discussing sending Powell or James Bakker III to solve the problem, since these men actually have engaged leaders in the Middle East. Men who have made their tracks during others administrations. We're sending Condi Rice, who doesn't have a fucking clue. I could go on forever. But the image of Bush, and the protection of the Republican party has always been more important than fixing real world problems. Today we pay in the Middle East, every day we pay with our education system, and one day soon our economy and future as well.

They're trying to solve all their diplomacy problems in a week, after ruining years of what was established. I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. You can build a house in a month, and burn it down in an hour. You can't burn it down for 5 years, and then try to build it in a day. That's not how it works. But you have to figure, they've got everything else so ass-backwards, why would anyone think they'd have the hardest problem even close to solved?

War Party! Whhheeeew Whoooo! Good TImes!!!

A friend of mine just sent me this, so I thought I'd post it, and comment on it:

Hey Dave---Just got caught up on a couple of blogs, and I'm glad you agree with me--that is. some of these conservatives think that because we are opposed to them on so many issues, and they are pro-Israel, then we have to be pro Arab. Some of my friends and I, who are died in the wool liberals, are completely pro-Israel too.  No contradiction there.  Bad thing about the war?  Aside from the fact that Israel is suffering so much, it is definitely taking pressure off Bush in Iraq.  The situation there is getting worse and worse by the day there, but is getting much less notice.  Keep up the good work--I check every now and then-----Art

Right, right.

It's time to reflect on who the conservatives really are. Lets not forget James A. Baker III, the primarily responsible for handing Bush the election in 2000 (excluding all the idiot Democrats, of course):

Fuck the Jews...they didn't vote for us anyway...

Of course there's Paul Wolfowitz, the supposed GENIUS behind the Iraq War plan, and his fellow Jew Richard Perle. The elitists, know it all, take one for the team Jews. The thing is about these two geniuses is they were both so absurdly fucking wrong! With those Jews there are a lot of other "wrong" Jews. In fact, about 25% of the US Jewish population falls under that category since they support George Bush, and this war.

Like so many Arabs who are conducting these wars against Israel, there are racist Jews who hate the Arabs in return. Thing is the dominant number of Jews do not make up a racist lot, like do the Arabs. The racist Jewish population is a minority. That's why I'm so amazed the conserative, probably racist, Hawks are able to feign serious concern over Israel. In Bush's defense he probably does defend Israel, but didn't realize it until October 2001, when Sharon told him to. But the rest of them, it's just an interest to secure an interest (aside from the Wolfowitz/Perle types). For the Jews who have take the neo-con side, it's a marriage of convenience. So what that most of the right-wing supporters are closet racists, who only care for Israel because one day the Messiah will return, and we all have to convert, or die? Right now we fight Arabs...TOGETHER!

Truth is, most Jewish people living in America are liberals, moderates, and likely Democrats. The Republicans who have preached "we're not nation builders" before 9/11 would just as soon abandon Israel if more money could be made with the Arabs (who they already make money with). They may be your buddy today, but you'd be served well discussing loyalty with Caesar before you made any deals with these conservatives.

I believe Bush does support Israel, but Bush alone. I believe he has no deep-seeded clue as to why. He just does. Someone can easily convince him it's better to not support Israel, like when he's working as an Oil Executive in 3 years.

----
not editing

Said it Once

I'll say it again.

People can say whatever they want about the Middle East conflict but at the end of the day there's this truism:

If the Arabs dropped their guns and weapons, no one would die. If the Israelis dropped theirs, they'd all be pushed into the sea.

One side is a racist side, and one side is not.

Heard on Street

"Yeah, I had him in my other league..."

That can only mean one thing, right? Fantasy Football? Except this guy was at least 70 years old. Are there 70 year old fantasy players? That's some league. You win dentures and an autographed photo from Bart Starr.

I feel like most men that age don't even like sports that much. They seem to get tired of today's game, since it's so different than what it was. Especially basketball fans. How can you watch Dwayne Wade dribble once from midcourt and dunk, and find it as enjoyable as what Jerry West did?

However, I will agree that football is different. The game has changed, but really only in the speed and size categories. Rules are generally the same. But I didn't think men of that age played fantasy sports.

Then again, he may have been referring to his "Bridge league."

Holy Crap

I saw an article in the Times today (wait, hold on, let me apologize for the lack of posting first: Sorry), and started laughing out loud. The Senate Bill curbing minors' travel for abortion. Obviously this is no laughing matter, but what is laughable is it's arrival: one week after the President's stem-cell veto. I swear to God, this guy made a bat with someone wherein he swore he'd be on the wrong side of history every time. He refuses to quit, and/or back down from any stupid decision.

Now you can be for this bill, since it's so easy to be on the surface, or against it, as I'm sure many women are, especially those who are least likely to read the NYTIMES, or read anything, for that matter, that's your call. But their are supporters of the bill who make really stupid statements like the one
made by Senator Ensign of Nevada (a state where no girl gets raped, or has an abortion...):

“If it is happening 20 times a year, it is still worth doing to protect those parental rights and to protect those children from being in these kinds of situations.”

Or the statement by huge winner, Senator Mitch McConnell or Kentucky:

“What opponents of this bill forget is that no parent wants anyone to take their children across state lines — or even across the street — without their permission.”

Hmm...both seem to make sense, right? Riiiight.

Well, if it's only happening 20 times a year, and if the number is really irrelevant, shouldn't the argument that if only one girl was raped by her father, and maybe doesn't have a mother, or is raped by an uncle, who she lives with, hold as much weight as the position Ensign supports? Of course it should.

As for McConnell, if you have a problem with a 15 year old crossing the street, well, you shouldn't have the power to even paint lines in roads, let alone conduct US Policy.

This issue is just another example of these Congressfolk giving back to th 28% of the people in this country who are borderline insane.

It's a stupid bill; not a stupid issue. But then again, it's a stupid government; not a stupid system.