Tennessee GOP stoops to attacking and distorting Michelle Obama

Parent Cafe
361

<p>DonnaL: “I do very much dislike this kind of uninformed, highly stereotyped ethnic generalization”</p>

<p>I also dislike any form of ethnic generalization, but that only happened in the active imaginations of some on this thread. My point was clearly stated - people who are of Jewish descent should stand up for Israel, and since many of them run media, they have the opportunity to do so. It is true that a number of people who are Jewish run mainstream news organizations. Unless that information is used in some kind of attack against Jewish people (strange that the absolute opposite is happening in my posts), and if it is a fact (which it is - do the research yourself if you are so inclined) - what’s the problem? If some other variation of that information was misused and exaggerated in the past or present, that doesn’t say a thing about my position. </p>

<p>The fact that various ethnic groups have clustered in different fields is something that can be found in history books. Why is that a problem? The fact that sinister forces have misused and twisted good information does not make it untouchable by the rest of us. That Jewish people run many media organizations is a fact. It isn’t a slur. It’s something to be proud of. That they have chosen not to give Israel a fair shake in their news reporting, and that it is an abomination, is my opinion (which I am entitled to).</p>

<p>To intentionally characterize my position as anything else is more than unethical. It is best to debate honorably, and when losing, never stoop to attack the character of an opponent.</p>

362

<p>Here is the entire point that Kluge cut and pasted (which made it sound entirely different than what was intended):</p>

<p>“Extreme Islamic fundamentalists work towards the destruction of Israel. They are the people with whom we are at war. How nice and tidy it would be if it were only Bin Laden! Israel is us, and we are Israel, on a level which includes values, politics, culture, religion, and economics. We have a shared destiny with that nation. If Israel is not safe, than neither are we. I am not Jewish, and I have no Jewish relatives. My opinion is anything but subjective. This is reality. Any enemy to Israel is an enemy to the United States. We should have gone into the Middle East a long time ago, long before our enemy got stronger…It sickens me that so much of the media is controlled by Jewish people, and so many allow one-sided, anti-war propaganda to dominate the screens and pages. Propaganda which directly harms the future of a nation which is their ethnic and religious fatherland.”</p>

<p>To take a person fighting to support Israel and out of liberal venom, completely turn it around to make the person seem like they are coming from the exact opposite direction. </p>

<p>For shame. It is the same as lying.</p>

<p>This is no longer a debate. It has been reduced to stereotypical liberal smear tactics.</p>

363

<p>spideygirl–My sister-in-law in Israel would love you. She and I have had rather heated “battles” over the Israel/Palestinian conflict, etc., one of which ended with me flamboyantly tossing a dairy dish into the meat portion of her kitchen sink. At which point, all hell broke loose and we spent the better part of the evening “sterilizing” the tainted surface. … For the most part, spidey, your ideas are similar to my very zionist sister-in-law’s. You are no more of an anti-Semite than she is.</p>

364

<p>Thank you, Hindoo. And you’re right. I have a friend from Israel, and our thoughts are probably identical on the topic of politics in the middle east.</p>

365

<p>Here is an article which makes a great point on this topic (and no - I don’t support all of the content at this site. This is the only article I have ever read from it).</p>

<p>[Media</a> Disgrace America, Israel and Themselves | NewsBusters.org](<a href=“http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/05/16/media-disgrace-america-israel-themselves]Media”>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/05/16/media-disgrace-america-israel-themselves)</p>

<p>Media Disgrace America, Israel and Themselves</p>

<p>By Noel Sheppard | May 16, 2008 - 12:41 ET </p>

<p>On the occasion of Israel’s 60th anniversary, President George W. Bush gave one of the greatest speeches of his career.</p>

<p>Yet, America’s media could only see this event through the tiny prism of the upcoming presidential election, and thereby totally ignored virtually everything that was said by the most powerful man in the world to one of our nation’s greatest allies.</p>

<p>From a speech that lasted over 20 minutes – interrupted eight times by applause from Israeli Knesset members – America’s media exclusively reported 83 words they felt insulted the candidate for president they have been unashamedly supporting for over a year.</p>

<p>Everything else in the President’s stirring and emotional address went completely ignored, so much so that the other 2,400 words were totally irrelevant, as was the significance of the day and the moment.</p>

<p>The President spoke of the founding of Israel, and America being the first nation to recognize her independence.</p>

<p>American media didn’t care.</p>

<p>The President spoke of the history of the Holy Land, and the miracle that was the creation of a democracy in the center of a region violently opposed to such a political structure.</p>

<p>American media didn’t care.</p>

<p>The President spoke of “the matchless value of every man, woman, and child,” how “democracy is the only way to ensure human rights,” and the sad reality that “the United Nations routinely passes more human rights resolutions against the freest democracy in the Middle East than any other nation in the world.”</p>

<p>American media didn’t care.</p>

<p>The President spoke of religious liberty being “fundamental to a civilized society” while condemning anti-Semitism.</p>

<p>American media didn’t care.</p>

<p>The President spoke of nations having “a right to defend themselves,” “that no nation should ever be forced to negotiate with killers pledged to its destruction,” and “that targeting innocent lives to achieve political objectives is always and everywhere wrong.” </p>

<p>American media didn’t care.</p>

<p>The President spoke of the fight against terror and extremism as being “the defining challenge of our time…a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle.” </p>

<p>American media didn’t care.</p>

<p>The President spoke of folks that “suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it.”</p>

<p>American media didn’t care.</p>

<p>The President spoke of freedom yielding peace, and how we “must stand with the reformers working to break the old patterns of tyranny and despair…give voice to millions of ordinary people who dream of a better life in a free society,” and above all, “have faith in our values and ourselves and confidently pursue the expansion of liberty as the path to a peaceful future.”</p>

<p>American media didn’t care.</p>

<p>The President spoke of the Middle East 60 years in the future:</p>

<p>Israel will be celebrating the 120th anniversary as one of the world’s great democracies, a secure and flourishing homeland for the Jewish people. The Palestinian people will have the homeland they have long dreamed of and deserved – a democratic state that is governed by law, and respects human rights, and rejects terro… </p>

<p>American media didn’t care.</p>

<p>No, none of this was important to Obama-loving press members, who in an effort to frame the President’s 2,500 words into a soundbite that would embarrass him while giving the junior senator from Illinois and fellow Democrats fodder to elucidate their foreign policy vision, ended up stealing this marvelous speech from the American people.</p>

<p>In so doing, our press disgraced our nation, our one true ally in the Middle East, and themselves.</p>

<p>As you ponder whether this is too harsh, consider how Agence France Presse reported this speech to its readers in an article entitled “Bush Basks in Israel’s Love” (emphasis added):</p>

<p>Facing dismally low approval ratings at home, US President George W. Bush basked for three days in near-adulation as he joined Israel’s 60th anniversary festivities.</p>

<p>His speech to the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, drew him standing ovations and earned him ecstatic praise from right-wing parties.</p>

<p>The Jerusalem Post published a piece entitled “If Only Israel’s Leaders Would Speak as Bush Did” (emphasis added):</p>

<p>Sometimes, when you’re knee-deep in the day-to-day, when you’re just struggling to get by, when you’re facing forces that seem so much bigger than you, there is a need for someone from the outside - someone bigger and more powerful - to come by, pat you on the back, tell you that you are not alone, and remind you both of your inherent worth and that it is all inherently worth it. </p>

<p>That is what the Bush did Thursday in the Knesset. […]
Were that Israel’s own leaders would speak in similar terms; were that Israel would believe as much in itself. […]
Words? Maybe. But if ever the Arab world will ever come around to accepting Israel’s existence, it will have to know that it cannot drive a wedge between Jerusalem and Washington. </p>

<p>Sadly, American media didn’t hear any of that. Instead, this is all that got through their bias filters:</p>

<p>Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. </p>

<p>The rest they stole from us, and for this we are owed an apology that certainly will never come, for instead of Americans being proud of the job our President did representing our nation on this historic visit, this day will live in infamy rather than immortality.</p>

<p>How truly sad we’ve come to this.</p>

<p>What the “outraged” Democrats and mainstream media are completely ignoring in Bush’s “appeasement” words used in yesterday’s Knesset speech is that they addressed concerns originally raised by Ariel Sharon.
Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, then Israeli Prime Minister Sharon warned the United States not to “appease the Arabs at [Israel’s] expense.” Sharon made reference to the catastrophic consequences of European democracies appeasing Hitler prior to World War II, specifically citing the Munich Pact of 1938 which ceded Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland to Germany:
‘‘Don’t repeat the terrible mistakes of 1938, when the enlightened democracies in Europe decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for a comfortable, temporary solution. [Israel] will not be Czechoslovakia.’’
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.</p>

<p>I am not a fan of President Bush, but this article speaks the truth about the media.</p>

366

<p>Bollocks.</p>

<p>Bush got reamed by the press on this one for very good reason. He broke with established precedent and brought rhetoric from the American presidential campaign to a foreign land. If he really wanted to honor Israel and have the attention focused on that country, he would have left his partisan fighting words at home.</p>

<p>Conservatives got up-ended on this because they don’t realize that talking to one’s enemies is not the same thing as the appeasement you cite. Here is a great example:</p>

<p>[YouTube</a> - Radio Host Kevin James Walks into a Smackdown](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1wSZBTAXRs]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1wSZBTAXRs)</p>

<p>I have run into a lot of partisan folks, Spideygirl, but you seem to take the cake for being so completely of the mindset that patriotism is limited to those who support GWB all the way.</p>

<p>Again, because Bush stooped to making this moment a partisan attack, you should blame the fact that he was called on it on him not on the media that reported on it.</p>

367

<p>“I have run into a lot of partisan folks, Spideygirl, but you seem to take the cake for being so completely of the mindset that patriotism is limited to those who support GWB all the way.”</p>

<p>Really? That’s funny - I am not a fan of George Bush. I’m extremely liberal socially, and far, far right fiscally. That makes me pretty much the opposite of Bush. </p>

<p>I think you should do some research before generalizing. The only thing you got right is that I like cake (which is dead-on).</p>

<p>Talk about “Bollocks”. Or were you providing a definition in the form of an example?</p>

<p>There was no partisan attack. The issue of appeasement is far bigger than partisan politics. The point of my post, BTW, was what the media LEFT OUT.</p>

<p>“If he really wanted to honor Israel and have the attention focused on that country, he would have left his partisan fighting words at home.”</p>

<p>HMMM…I wonder why the Israelis were so happy with his visit, even giving him standing O’s.</p>

368

<p>spideygirl: The issue of appeasement is an important one indeed. Bush’s speech, however, was heavily partisan - highlighted by his direct reference to Obama as someone who would appease enemies. Agree or disagree, the Knesset is an absolutely inappropriate place for that kind of politicking.</p>

369

<p>

</p>

<p>And the point of my post was that because Bush connected the issue of appeasement with a cheap partisan shot that became the story that people focused on. This is how Bush demeaned Israel, not how the media demeaned the country.</p>

<p>Nice try to dodge the label “Bush toady all and out lover.” It sticks to you, this label.</p>

370

<p>Frankly, when it comes to the critical nature of Israel’s position in the Middle East, I have a very high tolerance for things that will help the cause. Israel’s survival is that important, so if Bush did mention Obama directly, that really would not ruffle my feathers if the end goal was supporting Israel. </p>

<p>That being said, can you show me the quote where he did mention Obama by name, because I missed it.</p>

371

<p>Bedhead: “Nice try to dodge the label “Bush toady all and out lover.” It sticks to you, this label.”</p>

<p>What?!! LOL.</p>

<p>Why is it that liberals so often stoop to attack their debate opponents when they are losing? It’s like a disease, seriously. Each one of the two posts above spends more time attacking me than addressing the issue. Something even middle school kids know to avoid. Par for the course, I guess. So entertaining to me! Debating on this thread has been like getting free tickets to the liberal circus.</p>

<p>You still want to make excuses for the American media once again dropping the ball in not giving Israel a fair shot in coverage. I wonder why that is, really.</p>

372

<p>Bedhead: “Nice try to dodge the label “Bush toady all and out lover.” It sticks to you, this label.”</p>

<p>Bedhead, can you please translate into English?</p>

373

<p>

</p>

<p>Hardly losing, just pinning you down. I started insulting you about the time that you were saying that people against the Iraq War were fighting against this country and were not patriots.</p>

<p>Here’s classic Spideygirl right out of Republican talking points, b******* emails. And then you run away from the labels that your words attach to you:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Spideygirl, I would’ve expected you to have more respect for the troops, rather than to fall for this palaver and post it for others to see.</p>

<p>Here’s the truth. There were less than 80 combat related deaths during Clinton’s years. And I haven’t counted, but I’d bet most if not all of these happened in Somalia, an engagement started by Bush I, not Clinton. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If you’re going to lie, why don’t you do it about something less important than the numbers of American lives killed in combat?</p>

374

<p>spideygirl, what part of my post was attacking you?</p>

<p>The problem is, your entire outlook is colored by “I support Israel”. This isn’t a bad thing; I too support Israel’s efforts against its enemies. However, I don’t let that override my other senses. And when an elected leader uses the Knesset, and his elected position, as a bully pulpit to attack a contender for his position, I consider that unacceptable - supporting Israel or otherwise. And I suspect if the message had been something else that you didn’t consider acceptable, you’d agree as well.</p>

<p>What Bush did was wrong. He may have done it for a - in his eyes - good cause, but that doesn’t make it less wrong.</p>

375

<p>Isn’t it just an assumption that Bush was referring to Obama in his address to the Knesset? I don’t think he actually even mentioned any names, did he?</p>

<p>My, we are defensive, aren’t we?</p>

376

<p>“That being said, can you show me the quote where he (Bush) did mention Obama by name, because I missed it.”</p>

<p>In the Knesset speech, Bush did not mention Obama by name. When he made that comment, the first person who came to mind for me was Jimmy Carter, who had just recently met with the leader of Hamas. After a nanosecond of reflection, however, I figured Bush also intended to include Obama in his not-so-cryptic remark. Now, I don’t profess the ability to read minds, least of all such a dim and flickering one as that of our current Prez, but to me his inference was pretty clear. And inappropriately, embarrassingly made in a highly inappropriate place. Of course, I’m not inclined to cut GW much slack, for all the damage he’s done our country, here and abroad, over the past 7 1/2 years. Just my humble opinion.</p>

377

<p>Just a note. My rabidly Zionistic, career Israeli military sister-in-law who defiantly lives on the West Bank (not a highly contested community, though), and who was in charge of Civil Defense during the first Gulf War when scuds were raining down on Israel … I spoke to her on the phone yesterday. She supports Obama.</p>

378

<p>“Why is it that liberals so often stoop to attack their debate opponents when they are losing? It’s like a disease, seriously.”</p>

<p>Spidey–You seem to identify yourself as a solid conservative, when in fact, with your social liberalism and fiscal conservatism, you’re a hybrid.</p>

379

<p>Hindoo, are you unable to talk to a girl in real life? Why do you keep responding to this thread that should be canceled?</p>

<p>Why are readers not complaining and requesting this thread be removed?</p>

380

<p>janette … and why should this post be removed?</p>