On Change and Reflected Glory
Now that we are all living in the age of “Change We Can Believe”, it is heartening to see so many Iraq War politicos jump onto the Obama bandwagon.
George Bush managed to strike a congratulatory note in his speech after the elections. He looked forward to welcoming Obama to the White House, praised his great achievement as a man who made it from a Kenyan village to the White House.
But back in May, you may recall, Bush stood in front of the ministers in the Israeli Knesset, and told them Obama was a “Nazi Appeaser”:
Last night on Question Time, Jack Straw curled his lip malignantly at the now unpopular FOX News. Yet, less than five years ago, FOX News was the most prominent media cheerleader for the Iraq regime change cause. But the audience and panel were having none of it, and proceeded to take him to task on his response to a question regarding the Iraq War. But what does he care? No one ever lost their job for buying IBM or fabricating evidence for the Iraq War, as they say in corporate and political circles.
How many other politcians can you think of now who have conveniently forgotten their career-undermining moments in the light of Obama’s ‘Change’ message?
In the meantime, here’s David Bowie, that master of change and self-reinvention to help you along.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Culture,Current affairs
And your point is? No, really, what is your point?
The point is – don’t go calling someone a Nazi in the Knesset or you might find yourself eating your words on the lawn of the Whitehouse.
ain’t that the truth. (although a nazi appeaser is not the same thing as a nazi) – either way it is a thoroughly unhelpful thing to have said particularly in that forum.
b’shalom
bananabrain
You mean a Nazi-APPEASER surely. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
My point is that you’re only point is that in politics — as in many things in life — you win some and you lose some. That’s not much of a point.
Moreover, the true test of a democracy — a proper one, that is — is the transfer of power between competing interests. Respect, even love, of a democratic country and its institutions means respect for that process.
Or have you ever seen a U.S. incumbent NOT be gracious during a handover. It comes with the territory.
Excellent piece. Jack Straw’s presence last night on Question Time went against any known concept of decency.
I have far more time for the likes of Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross than I do for these warmongers. Brand and Ross have been far less corrupting of our young than Blair, Straw, Bush et al. And I am all for the sacking of the entertainers.
Sid, you might want to update your piece with a clip of Straw laying into Villepin at the US Security Council.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/france-rejects-british-deadline-for-disarmament-599892.html
Leaning towards M. de Villepin, Mr Straw said: “With respect to you, my good friend. The strong outside pressure is, and let’s be blunt about this, the presence of over 200,000 US and UK young men and young women willing to put their lives on the line for the sake of the United Nations. There is only one possible, sensible conclusion we can draw. We have to increase the pressure on Saddam Hussein, we have to put this man to the test. The Iraqis have the answer book already … it may take time to fabricate further falsehoods, but the truth takes only seconds to tell.”
Let this be his epitaph:
“it may take time to fabricate further falsehoods, but the truth takes only seconds to tell.”
Like El Cid, I am not sure what is your point.
Inconsistency? British politicians are entirely consistent in this matter – they follow the American administration footsteps: when Americans went to War, they followed along. Now that they start leaving, the position will shift as well to be in tune.
I abhor Bush, but your quip against him is sort of lame. We expect nothing less of Bush to congratulate Obama for his victory. What is next? Criticising McCain for being gracious in his concession speech after months of smear campaigns?
Also, the “change” is simply a change of Bush’s years. This will be a moderate government, and it will continue to have a strong pro-Israel stance.
I expect this from Obama:
1) Close Gitmo.
2) End “enhanced interrogation techniques” also known as torture, and reintroduce the Geneva convention on POWs.
3) Reinforce target attacks (a la Mossad) against terrorists and terrorist cells. Get Osama Bin Laden and his minions.
4) Tell Chavez that he is no Simon Bolivar, but a populist politician with dictatorial tendencies.
5) Lead the green industry revolution, and introduce guidelines for reducing energy waste.
6) More pro-active in the fight against homophobia, specially among minorities (Hispanics and blacks).
This is part of my wish list in no particular order.
You guys seem to have got this the wrong way round. Of course Bush is going to magnanimous in defeat, to the point of deferential even. But it is simply “due process” made perverse by the what he did eaerlier in Israel; which was, and lets get this right, an abhorrent and unfounded race card play *for purely political expediency* by the president of the USA. Surely a low point in US presidential history. No wonder the country needs Racial Healing. I think so anyway, your mileage may vary.
What an absurd thing to say. He is playing the “Democrats are pussies” card when dealing with terrorism, not playing the race card. That is really stretching it.
I think it was ‘we the republicans are better friends of Israel than him/them’. Which is actually much more absurd. Almost a bit like the whole of the US political machinery paying homage to AIPAC.
Ravi, I thought the same thing.
When a British politician uses the pejorative term of “appeaser” he is recalling which historical period exactly?
The only thing that can safely be concluded is that the same event can be interpreted differently. Surely we can all agree on at least that.
I can’t help suspecting that the writer simply has an axe to grind and wants to pin something on someone because they are the political enemy and he hates them. It feels emotional rather than anything Machiavellian.
I am also minded of stones and glasshouses. We all have a duty to play fair. Some people play the race card, others play the racist card. It can cheapen and divide us all.
ain’t that the truth. (although a nazi appeaser is not the same thing as a nazi) – either way it is a thoroughly unhelpful thing to have said particularly in that forum.
Yes, and that’s entirely the (very simple) point.
Neville Chamberlain’s period, of course.
Absolutely. Both cards are played too easily, and it really cheapens the discourse, specially when dealing with race. The list of grievances against Bush are too many – he is guilty of gross incompetence and putting this world in peril, I just think that he cannot be accused of being a racist. He is actually quite progressive in that front with the financial help he gave to Africa to combat AIDS, the amnesty law for millions of undocumented Hispanics, as well as the appointment of blacks in his cabinet, like Rice and Powell.
Good grief, you’ve got this all wrong. This is not about Bush’s attitude to black people, latter day Abe Lincoln though he may be.
When Bush goes in front of the Knesset and labels his opponent a “Nazi appeaser” he’s trying his best to confer the status of anti-semite on Obama. This all feeds into the deleterious “secret muslim/terrorist” rubric that has enjoyed so much coverage in this last election.
But of course for some, to highlight these appalling race tactics and to discuss them openly and clearly (and with irony because hey, you’ve gotta larf, ain’cha?) “cheapens the discourse” whereas Bush’s actual use of the anti-semite slur is not, that is insignificant, above criticism even!
‘Now that we are all living in the age of “Change We Can Believeâ€, it is heartening to see so many Iraq War politicos jump onto the Obama bandwagon.’
Well, you may be living in said age, I sure as hell am not. I’ll believe that Obama can walk the walk as much as he talks the talk the moment I see it and not a single second before.
Obama is a good man, I don’t doubt that. But this is not the second coming, no matter how much the internet chatterati big it up.
Like others Sid, I am not really sure what you are getting at here.
Taken in isolation, I would say that calling someone a Nazi appeaser is not accusing them of antisemitism, but accusing them of cowardice and a tendency to take the easy way out rather than fight a hard fight. I can’t watch the video you’ve posted so I don’t know what else Bush said or how he said it, but I wouldn’t say that “Nazi appeaser” always = “Jew-hater”, although it certainly could do in the right context.
It is an unacceptable thing to say, though, particularly in the Knesset. Fortunately, if Obama’s approval rating amongst Israelis is accurate, they weren’t taken in by it for a moment.
I live in Tottenham and because of Jack Straw, I was too scared to walk on the streets last night. And lets us not forget a certain, David Lammy MP ( for Tottenham) and traitor to the faith. He voted for the war against the wishes of most of his constitutes, while still calling Barrack Obama, a friend. A real nasty piece of work, big time.
You should try to be more careful in the words you use.
Bush never said that Obama was a Nazi appeaser, because at this point in time, we know what the nazis did 60 years ago, and thus, calling anyone a “Nazi appeaser” today is the same as saying they support or don’t mind what the nazis did. This is NOT what Bush said, obviously. He – and I agree it is unnaceptable – made a parallel between appeasing the nazi regime by the English prime-minister and appeasing terrorists today by the Democrats. There is no hint of anti-semitism at ALL, just the twisted logic from the warmongers that the diplomacy is for pussies, and that every conflict can be solved by war, because there is always a Hitler around. Which is why they “cleverly” branded islamists as islamofascists.
What Ravi said.
And can we please stop using this as a forum for having a pop at acquaintances?
A small point but Bush was not defeated. The Republicans, particularly the Bushes, are recognised for being quite brutal with their politcal opponents and then gracious after they have defeated them, to the point of calling them great Americans.
This presidential campaign has probably been the most civil in years and I would put some of that down to the restraining influence of McCain. Discussing the problems of a Joe the Plumber are considerably more civilized than the problems of a Willie Horton…
Don, what’s with #19?
Trust me, if I see you or anyone writing anything that is hypocritical, self-serving, or just plain false or misleading — not just theoretically, on paper, but in the context of real life and real experiences — I will make my point and highlight your inconsistencies. Do as I say is not enough for me. If it looks like shit, smells like shit, tastes like shit, it’s shit. And if you repeatedly offend me, show zero empathy, play dirty, and threaten the interests of my children by being tribalistic, I will have a pop at you.
I reserve the right to do that until God has squeezed the very last breath out of my body.
You might find this hard to believe, but I am an idealist. I believe in Kant’s categorical imperative. But I only let my guard down with like minded people.
El Cid
Oops. Wrong thread. I was commenting on BillerickayDicky’s tendency to drag his antipathy to specific individuals into every thread.
What did you think I meant?
Don, I think you want to be on this thread
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/2463
“ain’t that the truth. (although a nazi appeaser is not the same thing as a nazi) – either way it is a thoroughly unhelpful thing to have said particularly in that forum.”
Pray tell us precisely how many people in that forum stood up and objected to that statement and speech and how many in contrast applauded Bush and his speech?
Another whitewash because that forum didn’t object to Bush’s remark so why claim it was unhelpful in that forum when that forum didn’t say a word at the time?
How did they express their disgust? Oh yes they applauded the speech in “that forum”.
How did they express their disgust? Oh yes they applauded the speech in “that forumâ€.
By using universal sign language.
You claim rather ludicrously that “ain’t that the truth. (although a nazi appeaser is not the same thing as a nazi) – either way it is a thoroughly unhelpful thing to have said particularly in that forum.”
Well lets see what Knesset members who have stood shoulder to shoulder with Bush and said he is a true friend of Israel. Did they walk out in disgust or did they actually express more glowing terms for the speaker?
“several right wing members of Knesset said that “Bush seems to be more Zionist the Olmertâ€, and that “it is better to have Bush as a PM instead of Olmertâ€.”
“Some of the Knesset members even said that “Bush appears to be the one person who will achieve the Zionist aspirationsâ€,”
“Olmert added that “Bush is a true and faithful friend to Israelâ€, and that the friendship between Israel and the United States is based on “moral, human and social values based on justice and peaceâ€.”
So a man who many would say is a war criminal was said after the speech to have been a true friend.
Do you notice Mr. Whitewash that none complained about his comment until the Republicans lost power and the world pushed for change.
What is more amazing is that Abraham Foxman – ADL – actually didn’t bat an eyelid at the comment which you laughably claim was inappropriate in “that forum”.
In fact it is only now seen as inappropriate and is that because Obama won?
“”This has been Gorge Bush, this has been his policy: You don’t talk to terrorists,” Foxman told JTA. “To say to negotiate with Hamas and Hezbollah and al-Qaida is appeasement is not a political statement. It was a very special moment.”"
So it wasn’t described as inappropriate as a speech but a very special moment. So your crocodile tears over six motnhs later are simply false. That forum accepted what his statement and in fact some thought of it as a very special moment.
Hardly like your whitewash that it wasn’t appropriate.
In fact the only blast came from the USA itself:
“The National Jewish Democratic Council cast Bush’s comments as insulting to Israel.
“It was a real honor that Bush was invited to address the Knesset on Israel’s 60th anniversary,” it said in a statement. “Unfortunately, Bush took advantage of this opportunity to use the power and prestige of the presidency to launch a shameless political attack on foreign soil.”"
Actually even Mr. So-Called Peace – Peres didn’t object.
But “that forum” loved his speech and didn’t bat an eyelid at his comment. Only now they have been wrong footed that it is deemed inapproriate so Agent BibiBrain is out to pretend it was inappropriate. Did their comments get lost in the post then??
The fact is that the Knesset stood shoulder to shoulder with Bush when he made those disgraceful comemnts. It applauded Bush and Blair and gave them many honours and privledges for their needless war mongering and that forum as you call it has lavished continual praise on them. That forum should be ashamed and no-one should whitewash their role in support of Messrs Blair and Bush.
Sid – “By using universal sign language.”
I believe they used the universal approval langage known as applause for the speech. They also gave Bush many honours which means that they deemed the comment as acceptable at the very least and many approved of it at the time.
For some people to now claim it was inappropriate in that forum when the forum didn’t even object at the time is crazy. Apparently it was a very special moment for that forum at the time as they mistily gazed at their friend calling people Nazi Sympathisers and said percisely nothing. Objected at the time to precisely nothing.
No wonder they are backing away now.
I wonder now if their true friend is still their true friend.
Hey BibiBrain did Peres object at the time? Nooooooooooooooo. Did Bibi object at the time? Nooooooooooooooo. Did Livni object at the time? Nooooooooooooooo.
Did anyone in the knesset object at the time?????
Why would they object? The reason why it was deemed unacceptable in the US – is because Bush attacked Democrats in a political speech outside the US. There is an unwritten rule for politicians: never criticize your political opponents while away. In any case, Bush never said that Obama or Democrats were “nazi appeasers”, but accused them of being naive and clueless in the fight against terrorism, just like Chamberlain was when he negotiated with Hitler.
I think this will only get settled once we have the muslim equivalent of the Simon Wiesenthal centre.
Ravi – “Why would they object?”
Because Mr. BananaBrain claimed – “a thoroughly unhelpful thing to have said particularly in that forum.â€
So if it was deemed by the Members of the Knesset to have been thoroughly unhelpful surely they would have reacted rather than applauding and saying how grrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeaaaaatttttt W was.
The objection only came from Mr. BananaBrain once Obama was elected and people started highlighting the speech.
They didn’t object because they agreed with George except events have moved on so they need to be seen to be objecting now.
Fact is that Israel only viewed friends if they are Yes men which is the most damaging aspect towards peace. Gideon Levy wrote a brilliant piece about this last week. They loved Bush because he did 99% of what they wanted.
Now the world has turned then BananaBrain tried to step in and excuse his MPs from their lack of inaction.
none complained about his comment until the Republicans lost power and the world pushed for change.
I think Imran has made a fair point.
Yeah, whatever, shout me down. But the fact of the matter is, he has.
I think the point was that for a US President to stand in front of the Knesset and imply that his Democrat would-be successor was an appeaser of anti-semites was unhelpful and against established protocol, not that it would be unpopular in the Knesset.
Bush, on his way out, was obviously going to be cheered. But that he took the opportunity to poison the well, to try to taint Obama in the eyes of people with whom Obama is going to be working within weeks, was certainly unhelpful.
The Knesset’s response is irrelevant. Bush damaged (or tried to)Obama’s position as an honest broker in the middle-east for party political reasons.
You know what Don? I’ll give you that. That was a well argued counter-point.
Don – “The Knesset’s response is irrelevant.”
Sorry that is nonsense. Bush was plain nasty in his comments and silence can be implied as acceptance. So when they didn’t speak up they accepted his point.
To say the Knesset’s response is irrelevant means that it won’t take responsibility for what its allies say in its own arena.
Tell me would the Knesset be so quiet and acepting if Bush had had the guts to tell them a few home truths? Would Abraham Foxman be teary eyed at that special moment? Of course not.
The response of the Knesset said that they stood shoulder to shoulder with a man whose misleading has cost millions of lives by staying silent.
Sorry but the Knesset due to what happened in the Holocaust should be leaders in not giving audience to people like Bush and Blair and not giving them undue praise.
The leadership of all parties in the Knesset failed in their duty to humanity that day and they should be ashamed and not excused. What they asked Arabs Leaders to do they failed to do themselves – namely they let a man whose war mongering not only speak but also to taint people unfairly.
Bush’s actions are the cause of Israel’s misfortune in that region by not pushing for peace and if you think he deserves a Knesset speech then you are mistaken. The Knesset should have told him to get lost because he cost Israel and the Palestinians eight years of peace making and thus many lives.
If Bush had brought peace then he deserved to speak, if he had tried to broker an honest peace then he deserved to speak. But for failing the two parties and causing lasting damage he didn’t deserve a visa let alone speak in the Knesset and be given the accolades he was given.
The Knesset failed that day and it failed itself above all, and the people it serves next. It is a shameful moment in the history of the Knesset and the MPs there should be asking themselves why they didn’t have the courage to speak out or walk out.
The man has brought ruin to the region and Israel in the long term.
Can you tell me – without mentioning bananabrain – what exactly did Bush say that was offensive to the Knesset?
‘what exactly did Bush say that was offensive to the Knesset’
Absolutely nothing. That was the problem. The fact they relished the adulation is disastrous for the institution and the country.
Ravi – “Can you tell me – without mentioning bananabrain – what exactly did Bush say that was offensive to the Knesset?”
Yes I can – Bush implied to the Knesset that potentially one of the people they may have to deal with as future President may be a Nazi Appeaser or an ex-President who is trying or bring parties together may be a Nazi Appeaser.
How was it offensive is on two fronts:
1. The Holocaust shouldn’t be used to smear people because of an election. People died – men, women and children. It is distasteful to use such fear unnecessarily to put down your opponent as it demeans the horrible nature of the events.
Is the holocaust now a political football for self serving politicians to use as part of election campaigns or is it something people need to learn from?
If people like Bush and the GOP cry Nazi Appeaser too often then where a cry is needed people will ignore it. Given the fact this may affect the Jews then the Knesset should be offended as it may affect them when they need help.
2. The Knesset shouldn’t become an American Domestic Political playground where derogatory terms are passed around like a football. This devalues the role and standing of the Knesset.
Thus the members should have been offended.
Turn it the other way if a Holocaust Denier went to the Knesset and denied the holocaust took place would you expect the Knesset to sit quietly by and applaud later? No.
So why expect the Knesset to sit by as the Holocaust and its memories are used in a game of politics? It demeans those that were killed that their murder is now a political game.
imran:
have just seen your comments above and i think you have fundamentally misunderstood what i’ve said.
not for the first time, i might add.
the reason i said it was “thoroughly unhelpful” is because the knesset has one of the worst track records when it comes to misuse of the word “nazi”. israeli mks routinely abuse each other in the most extreme terms and, to the shame of the country, its elected representatives are not shy of using the N-word whenever they are describing a point of view with which they profoundly disagree. it is something which disgusts me – but then again the conduct of the israeli political class is pretty disgusting in my experience. that is why it is inappropriate, not for any of the other rather jejune reasons you suggest, because he is playing to the gallery in the worst fashion and pandering to their already ridiculous prejudices.
this is, to my way of thinking, neither complimentary to bush nor olmert – though i’m sure the speaker thought otherwise, zionism being in his undoubted view synonymous with the point of view of the israeli right wing. of course it is nothing of the sort, but merely a convenient label for one’s own political prejudices.
the phrase “many would say” is hardly a categorical one.
indeed, that was the first i heard about it. you seem intent on finding some sinister motive.
i don’t think you have the least idea how these idiots think. nor do you actually understand why i consider it inappropriate, which is why you seem to be equating my points of view with netanyahu. as i have said on that other thread (where i had begun to think we were getting somewhere in the discussion) this is both unhelpful and misleading.
gosh, what a freudian slip this is. i’m not israeli, nowhere have i ever said so, yet you say these are *my* MPs. they’re not. i didn’t vote for them. i think i’ve said plenty about my objection to the conduct of the israeli political class both left and right. and i think i’ve been particularly clear about my objection to the politicisation of the term “nazi” to serve an alarmist right-wing agenda. yet you persist in painting me as some sort of apologist and netanyahu clone.
as a matter of fact your objections in the previous post to the misuse of the holocaust i agree with 100%. what i find profoundly troubling is that you are unable to distinguish between my point of view and some swivel-eyed right-wing nutjob. and that is profoundly troubling, because it’s precisely what the aforementioned swivel-eyed right-wing nutjobs say that people like you think about jews, israelis or not, regardless of their opinions. you’re actually treating me like a PO box for your prejudices, not as a person.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Dear Mr. BananaBrain,
Please accept my apology, I didn’t realise that you hadn’t read the comment before and misunderstood what you were saying.
“the reason i said it was “thoroughly unhelpful†is because the knesset has one of the worst track records when it comes to misuse of the word “naziâ€.”
That is very sad and indeed then the Knesset needs to look at itself. Why can’t MPs be banned for such slurs?
“what i find profoundly troubling is that you are unable to distinguish between my point of view ”
As I said I apologise as I misunderstood what you said, it was a genuine mistake and I can only apologise for my lack of understanding.
Regards
imran,
very decent of you. and, yes, it is very sad. many people get very annoyed about this, including survivors.
b’shalom
bananabrain