American foolish enough to read anything by the clearly anti-Bush McClatchy news service were treated to an astoundingly disgraceful Independence Day gift Wednesday with an article that blamed all the problems in Gaza on – wait for it – the White House (h/t Dan Gainor).
In this smear piece published on the occasion of our nation’s 231st birthday, the hits started right in the glorious headline: “How U.S. policy missteps led to a nasty downfall in Gaza; Plan to isolate Hamas boomeranged.”
Isn’t that special? Alas, that was only the beginning (emphasis added throughout):
Officials in the Bush administration awoke on the morning of January 26, 2006 to catastrophic news.
Hamas, a violent Islamist movement whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel, had won Palestinian parliamentary elections — elections that were deemed free and fair and a cornerstone to President Bush's initiative to bring more democracy to the Muslim world.
For the next 17 months, White House and State Department officials would undertake an all-out campaign to reverse those results and oust Hamas from power.
Instead of undermining Hamas, though, the strategy helped to exacerbate dangerous political fissures in Palestinian politics that have delivered another setback to the president's vision of a stable, pro-Western Middle East.
Fascinating. So, in order to legitimize democracy rather than undermine it, the Bush administration supported Hamas being involved in the elections. If they hadn’t, both American and international press representatives would have seen any government in Gaza as just being a U.S. puppet.
However, the people in the region decided to put this terrorist group in power. And that’s Bush’s fault? Aren’t the Palestinians who voted for this murderous organization at all to blame?
In McClatchy’s view, apparently not:
As recently as March 2007, Jordanian officials developed a $1.2 billion proposal to train, arm and pay Abbas' security forces so they could control the streets after he dissolved the government and called new elections. McClatchy Newspapers obtained a copy of the plan. While two sources close to Abbas said U.S. officials were involved in developing and presenting the plan, a State Department official described it as a Jordanian initiative.
Ultimately, congressional concerns in Washington and Israeli objections kept any significant military aid from being delivered, even as Israeli intelligence and the CIA warned that Hamas was becoming stronger.
Hmmm. So, unnamed members of Congress, along with unnamed Israeli dissenters, blocked the Bush administration’s plans to fund the rival party of Fatah. As a result, Hamas got stronger.
Yet, this is Bush’s fault? Wouldn’t it have been appropriate to identify which members of Congress thwarted the idea, as well as who within Israel balked at the military aid, and point some blame at them for the current situation?
Or, would that be too much like journalism?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I assume toenail fungus is Bu
July 5, 2007 - 10:07 ET by NewsbusterbrownI assume toenail fungus is Bush's fault, too.
EVERYTHING is Bush's fault, f
July 5, 2007 - 11:27 ET by BeowulfEVERYTHING is Bush's fault, from world violence to the weather to the toast you burned this morning. Toenail fungus? Sure, why not?
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Bad reaction to the Rove Weat
July 5, 2007 - 11:58 ET by FastEdBad reaction to the Rove Weather Machines' severe weather changes and extra humidity, so yeah it is.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Let's go back a few years to
July 5, 2007 - 10:17 ET by ThisnThatLet's go back a few years to Hitler's so-called "democratice elections". We now know that Hitler was not elected as part of a true democratic process. Instead, there were a number of back-room deals that led to his power. This is known now and reported freely in the free press.
The Hamas victory also was a result of back-room deals, arm-twisting, intimidation, lies, bribery, and so forth. The election was not of the form used in the U.S. Why does the MSM not want to report the facts? I'm beginning to understand, slowly, the real mind-set and hate that these people have of the United States, our values, and our institutions. And it's scary, very scary.
I liked Jon Stewart's analy
July 5, 2007 - 10:26 ET by sarcasmoI liked Jon Stewart's analysis of the Hamas vs Fatah elections/conflict describing the actual fundamental difference between the two groups. He said something like: "The one side wants to kill all the Jews. The other side wants to *KILL* all the Jews." Ok, well, maybe it's funny in that not-so-funny way we sometimes see these days, I guess...
JMR
Liberals can't see the answer
July 5, 2007 - 10:58 ET by mattmLiberals can't see the answer when it's right in front of them. The problem here is appeasment. Bush could only be at fault here to the extent that he has bought into the appeasment method - which never works.
The real culprit is Jimmy Carter (according to this author)
Liberals can't see the answer
July 5, 2007 - 10:58 ET by mattmHamas members, a terrorist gr
July 5, 2007 - 11:08 ET by jdhawkHamas members, a terrorist group, killing Fatah members, a terrorist group - sounds like a win/win to me!
And, if President Bush had anything to do with terrorists wanting to kill other terrorists, then more power to him . . .
Meanwhile, the cold blooded murder of Fatah by Hamas in front of family members doesn't garner but a whimper from our press. The NYT, on the otherhand, when it came to the women's panties on prisoners heads at Abu Gharib, they spilled front page ink above the fold for 40 days.
About the only thing I can th
July 5, 2007 - 11:37 ET by BeowulfAbout the only thing I can think of that Bush did which could be construed as "undermining" Hamas would be to not give them money. He, as well as Israel and the EU, halted aid money from going to this self-proclaimed terrorist government, under the simple condition that they recognize Israel as actually existing and promise to adhere to non-violence treaties. But, as usual, no matter what, anything bad happening anywhere in the world just has to be Bush's fault...
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Looking at the 40 year war i
July 5, 2007 - 12:58 ET by Dan The Man 2Looking at the 40 year war in Palestine I dont think there is any solution to peace. Israel did good by building a wall, funny it seems taht soon after the wall started stopping the rabble the piranahs began eating each other. Perhaps we should just let them to continue to eat each other, suppling both sides with arms and whan one starts to win we supply the other side.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
Thanks for posting this Noel,
July 5, 2007 - 14:46 ET by DontTreadOnMeThanks for posting this Noel, I've been looking for ammunition against McClatchy for awhile.
The Bush Hatred Derangement
July 5, 2007 - 17:02 ET by Chris NormanThe Bush Hatred Derangement Syndrome has reached (a long time ago, actually) "the boy who cried wolf" stage. They have criticized and sneered at Bush so much, that it's lost all of it's sting and doesn't even register now...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
You sure have that right Chri
July 5, 2007 - 17:12 ET by bigtimerYou sure have that right Chris...they even forget he is not running again the simpletons...somehow they think his LOW poll numbers are going to have some effect on the next election....the nimrods.
Now they are going after Thompson as you know....
I was reading this late last night with the Defeatist strategery for him...bet he is shaking in his boots eh?
LOL...
"The revolving door of R
July 5, 2007 - 17:29 ET by Chris Norman"The revolving door of Republican politicians moving in and out of top political offices and Washington, D.C., lobbying firms..."
How about the hallway that Dem ex-staffers walk from the Capitol and White House to the network news divisions?
Hi BT,
Interesting piece there. You'd think they could come up with some new methods and angles. It must be some kind of neuroses, because normal people know at some point there are diminishing reaction/returns from constant criticism...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
dems don't get the jobs
July 5, 2007 - 17:37 ET by LionKingDumbocrats can't get these high paying lobbyist jobs. Most of them either die in office or are escorted to jail -- associating with their voter base -- the dead and the felons.
Oh, a lot of Dem bigwigs come
July 5, 2007 - 17:47 ET by Chris NormanOh, a lot of Dem bigwigs come from lobbying and lawfirms and return, after office, from whence they came. You just won't see it reported.
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Interesting piece there. You'
July 6, 2007 - 11:15 ET by BeowulfInteresting piece there. You'd think they could come up with some new methods and angles. It must be some kind of neuroses, because normal people know at some point there are diminishing reaction/returns from constant criticism... -
This would be a true statement id the Dem voter base were "normal people". These are the people who have kept political animals like Schumer, Pelosi, Kennedy, Reid, Boxer, Murtha, Jefferson, Dean, etc. in office for so many years, regardless of their hypocrisy, lies, arrogance, and actual criminal behavior.
These are the people who will vote Hillary despite her antithesis to their every moral philosophy. I work with one. He is pro-gun, anti-abortion (on demand), anti-illegal "immigration", anti-big government, anti-tax increase, and so on. Yet every time I dust off Hillary's public position on these issues, he blows me off and says he'll still vote for her.
The hard-core Dem base has absolutely no rationality, just as the Dem leadership has none. You can't discuss with them. You can't negotiate with them. You can't have an intelligent, rational conversation with them.
And unfortunately, you can't shoot them... ;-}
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
The media just cannot make up
July 5, 2007 - 19:07 ET byThe media just cannot make up their mind: Is Bush dumb as a box of rocks? Or is he smart enough to take over the world!?
I dare say, that even though I do not agree with everything Bush has done, he was still the better choice of the two major runners. I still believe that the war was inevitable. And I believe that he must not be doing that much wrong, or the largely Democrat U.S. Congress would have done something drastic by now.
It does also appear that Bush used us right-wing Christians. This became clear to me, when he spoke against those who would not like his plan for the immigrants who are here illegally. But, again, of the two choices, Bush was the better choice. Let's just hope he is not able to implement his plan, and that Tom Tancredo gets into office in 2008, to handle those illegal immigrants the right way.
Debra...
Debra...once again, you said
July 5, 2007 - 20:42 ET by Cape ConservativeDebra...once again, you said it for me. I'm another GWB supporter who is disappointed in either his personal judgement or his advisors re: immigration. And he is definitely the better of either democrat who was running against him! I cannot even begin to imagine our world under Gore or Kerry. Let us hope that the next year and a half goes without this immigration bill resurfacing...we must NOT allow our congressional representatives to make laws that go against the wishes of their constituents. I've heard %% from 85 to over 90 of Americans who do NOT want this immigration bill passed. Where our senators come up with their grand plans is beyond my understanding.
Hi Cape Conservative,James Ma
July 5, 2007 - 21:22 ET byHi Cape Conservative,
James Madison said, "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition."
Thank goodness our government does not rest in the hands of one person or one group of people.
Hope you're having a nice evening.
Debra...
Speaking of Bush Derangement
July 6, 2007 - 07:53 ET by LeonSpeaking of Bush Derangement Syndrome, looks like Reagan's former NSA Chief has come down with a bad case of BDS, er, uh, acceptance of reality.
Here's what General Odom says we should do about Iraq before Bush leaves office:
"To force him to begin a withdrawal before then, the first step should be to rally the public by providing an honest and candid definition of what “supporting the troops” really means and pointing out who is and who is not supporting our troops at war. The next step should be a flat refusal to appropriate money for to be used in Iraq for anything but withdrawal operations with a clear deadline for completion.
The final step should be to put that president on notice that if ignores this legislative action and tries to extort Congress into providing funds by keeping U.S. forces in peril, impeachment proceeding will proceed in the House of Representatives. Such presidential behavior surely would constitute the “high crime” of squandering the lives of soldiers and Marines for his own personal interest."
So does this guy support the terrorists? Certainly, somebody that worked with the HERO of the Republican party, the man that single-handedly won the cold war, can't be a terrorist supporter. Can he? Read Odom's quote and re-assess your positions. The man is on point.
Link
July 6, 2007 - 07:59 ET by LeonLink
Leon, you do realize that O
July 6, 2007 - 08:21 ET by MightyMouthLeon, do you realize that Odom has been out of the Military for 20 years? He does not have access to the intelligence reports that the president does. Also, He was primarily a cold war general, and does not seem to comprehend the nature of this new threat. Furthermore, he was assisant to Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was assistant to... wait for it.... Jimmy Carter! And we all know the great job Jimmy Carter did for national security.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Leon, Do you also realize
July 6, 2007 - 13:38 ET by BeowulfLeon,
Do you also realize how moronic this sounds? Here we go with the "impeach Bush" BULL$HIT again. Impeach him on what FRIGGIN grounds? Both you and those you quote just need to shut up and go sit in a corner coloring until you can come up with some lucid, fact-based arguments and/or accusations. I, and most rational people, are sick to death of you do-nothing liberals stomping on your pink panties to cut off funding while lipping that you "support the troops".
Announcing a withdrawal will put them more in harm's way, not to mention that withholding funding for all but withdrawal will limit their combat capability. Setting a deadline (how appropriately named) will also serve to cause one of two things to happen: Either the "insurgents" will begin to hit our troops with everything they have, knowing our ability to fight back will be limited, or they will simply crawl into their holes and wait till we leave, then hit the shaky Iraqi government with everything they have. Either way, both we and the Iraqis lose.
Also, "putting the President on notice" that "impeachment proceedings will proceed" is extortion, not requesting funding for combat operations. And show me, in writing, the association of "High Crimes" and "squandering the lives" of our troops. If this were indeed so defined, LBJ would surely have died in prison for his Vietnam debacle (God! It feels good to throw Vietnam back into a libs teeth!!!).
Finally, disregarding Odom's service to Carter, what the hell does working for Reagan have to do with his patriotism or philosophy?
And I'm going to rob from your later post and answer that here as well.
It's not about getting the Repbulicans, it's about developing an effective strategy so that we can actually win, instead just persisting in a failing status quo. - So, explain to me how withdrawing from Iraq can in any way be construed as a "winning strategy"? "Winning" doesn't usually involve running away. Name one "strategic" option the Dems have offered? The one and only policy offered has been withdrawal. Let me make this simple. A "winning strategy" actually involves "winning". Look up both "winning" and "leaving" and see if they are synonymous.
Why don't you and your cronies who care so much about our troops actually ASK OUR TROOPS if they wish to be withdrawn? ASK OUR TROOPS if they feel they are accomplishing anything worthwhile. ASK OUR TROOPS if they feel their lives are being "squandered. We all know what the answers would be, don't we? And they surely wouldn't fit into your little vision of the world. Instead of speaking on their behalf, try ASKING THEM! And BTW, it most certainly is about "getting the Republicans". Your Democrat poster children will do anything, sacrifice anything, to regain power.
People like you that support mediocre results in the war on terror and the war in Iraq are killing your country and killing our ability to win. - People like you who have been relentlessy vitriolic towards every single aspect of the war, who have been spewing the party line about how "Bush lied", who have been obstructing every initiative, who constantly soput off that "the war is lost" and such, are the ones killing our country and are DIRECTLY responsible for many US deaths by encouraging the terrorists OUR TROOPS have to deal with every day.
Time to demand results. Time to sit down and think about what we're doing for once. I merely posted this b/c it's nice to see a smart, well-established, well-respected individual come to his senses and try to help. - If this is your definition of the above, I actually pity you. But then again, in your narrow mind, Howard Dean and Joe Biden are also "smart, well-established, well-respected individuals" as well.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Hermann Goring
July 6, 2007 - 13:48 ET by dagdaOdom is making the same mistake that Hermann Goring made during WWII. He stopped the bombing of British airfields and went after London, then stopped bombing all together when they did not sue for peace on the timetable. If he had continued to bomb the airfields the Germans would have had air superiority and would have been able to invade Britain successfully.
Odom wants us to pull out just as al Quadi is starting to hurt. This shows a poor use of intelligence that is available to everyone. If his intelligence is worse than mine, he has less information to make an informed opinion on. Neville Chamberlain comes to mind here as well.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
huh?
July 6, 2007 - 08:04 ET by the mad poleNo wait, let's take a poll or see what Alfred E. Neuman thinks. For every be-heading, we counter with a hug.This is bigger than your F%$#ing gotcha games.We have been getting hit for over a decade and you want to get the Republican. "The opposition party is still part of the great satan"
Mad Pole,No, actually, I care
July 6, 2007 - 08:07 ET by LeonMad Pole,
No, actually, I care about my country. It's not about getting the Repbulicans, it's about developing an effective strategy so that we can actually win, instead just persisting in a failing status quo.
People like you that support mediocre results in the war on terror and the war in Iraq are killing your country and killing our ability to win.
Time to demand results. Time to sit down and think about what we're doing for once. I merely posted this b/c it's nice to see a smart, well-established, well-respected individual come to his senses and try to help.
I wait
July 6, 2007 - 08:32 ET by the mad poleBe patient child, the boots are on the ground, Iran has been outed and civilian casualties are falling. Feel free to second guess Bosnia , as the ink has dried. I BELIEVE our troops will succeed in Iraq despite puussies amongst us. Surge completed on the 8th of July 2007
leon has left the building
July 6, 2007 - 08:41 ET by vrwc13leon has left the building ) :
The illogic of the Left's "support" of the troops
July 6, 2007 - 09:22 ET by RJSome examples of the illogic of the Left's "support" of the troops....
After doing everything they could at home and abroad to destroy the effectiveness of the military, the Left now complains that the President doesn't have a plan to win.
Even before all the troops were in place the Left proclaimed the surge to be a failure.
The words of a Jimmy Carter era Cold War General, retired for 20 years, are proclaimed as if they came from General Patton in the middle of WWII.
Yet, they wonder why the American public sees the Left as being weak on protecting the country, and why we scoff at their claims that they "support" the troops......
Leon, I agree that if s
July 6, 2007 - 09:04 ET by shawn228Leon, I agree that if something is not working there is nothing wrong with changing the strategy. I know I would not want to be in the Presidents shoes right now. Approval ratings for him are a record low "about par with the Democratic Congress", His immigration bill has just been shot down, He does not know how much political fallout there will be of commuting Scooters sentence, and he is losing support from his base for the war.
In the last few months he has lost support from GOP Senators Lugar and Voinivich and just yesterday he lost support from NM Senator Pete Domenici. What I don't understand is the defection before General Petraeus report comes out in September. We owe it to the President to see the actually results of "the surge"
I realize it its heartbreaking watching our troops die on the news every night. I don't doubt it for a second that you want to support our troops by moving them out of harms way, but my question to you Leon is what would happen if we left Iraq right now? I am in total agreement with the President that if we pulled out Iraq would be a haven for terrorist. I am on my way to work so i will talk to you later. Have a good day Leon.