From Beirut to the Beltway

God told me the BBC is full of crap.
 

Nice Post
This idiot needs psychological treatment fast. I don't think the world can survive three more years with this clown in the White House.
Check out this link
http://www.juancole.com/2005/10/arguing-with-bush-and-gwot-bush.html
where Juan Cole deconstructed the whole moronic speech
 

yes because shaath is such a credible source! I wonder where saeb erekat is!?
 

This comment by Bush is consistent with the Religous Right's grip on power in the US and its projection into the ME. We live in dangerous times. I only hope the Lebanese can withstand these religous hurricanes.

Issam
 

Issam, maybe moving a bit beyond the cliches would be best, no? I mean this kind of nonsense makes me laugh. It's typical of the Arabs, if you don't mind my stereotyping a bit here. But it also underlines a fundamental lack of understanding of the US democratic process.

George Bush could claim that God speaks to him on an hourly basis from now till the cows come home. Without the approval of the Senate (almost half of which is Democrat) he wouldn't have been able to get the Army to fire a single shot. So please... We get used to our own systems whereby the leader decides something and does it. It's just not the case. Unless Shaath also spoke to all of the Senate who also told him that God spoke to all of them!! Maybe God spoke to Shaath... What garbage.
 

This is typical BBC BS by the way. Shaath!? I mean come on... but hte BBC loves this shit and to perpetuate this image that Issam summarized of "Oh my God, the religious nuts are running the world, they're like Ben Laden..." I mean, come on... spare me.
 

Issam is right
This is typical Bush not typical BBC.
Bush said exatly the same thing to Bob Woodward in Plan of attack. Woodward asked whether Bush has asked for his father's advice before invading Iraq, and Bush replied "no, but I got the advice of the higher father".
So the quote is definitely true and only the blind do not want to see that America has been taken over by the religious nuts.
The creationnists are attempting to overcome Darwin. We're back in the Middle Ages. Check out today's Guardian and Independent. The entire world is laughing.
PS. It amazes me that some Lebanese are stupid enough to support this nut. As much as we hate Syria, we should realize that this guy can unleash hell under any false pretext. What if God tells the moron to raze Beirut to get rid of Hezbollah ?
 

Here's another piece on this. The White House denying the claim. But more importantly, read Mahmoud Abbas' version. He said that Bush told him "I have a moral and religious obligation. I will get you a Palestinian state."

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the basis of the argument made by Palestinian activists "moral"!?!? But this is typical with Arab reactions to the US: damned if you do, damned if you don't. Like that moron Azmi Bishara for instance, refuting in a talk at Princeton Bush's allegation that Democracy helps to stop terrorism. He said when did terrorism come to Iraq, before or after totalitarianism? Great. Let's endorse totalitarianism (Cole did the same stupid thing. I called him on it at the time), then bitch that the US backs despots in the ME!!! Schizophrenia... But all these guys prancing as "liberals" are all Stalinists at heart.
 

This is not to say that I know that the Abbas quote is accurate as well. I'm just pointing out something.
 

The comment made by the last anonymous proves my point.
 

And you got the Woodward thing by the tail. Here's a quote from that:

"I'm surely not going to justify war based upon God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case, I pray that I will be as good a messenger of His will as possible. And then of course, I pray for forgivene
 

that's "forgiveness"
 

Great post, Kais, this is pretty scary stuff.

As you said, I wonder how God keeps up with all the fundamentalists around.

Check out Justin Raimondo's take on this
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7546

+ Seymour Hersh's book is much better than Woodward's, who no loinger has the guts to question authority
 

This bit from Kesher Talk is the same point I made:

"
An interesting point, to my mind, is the difference in language between Nabil Shaath’s comments and Abu Mazen’s. Abu Mazen’s comments are to my mind completely unobjectionable. Since Bush is a religious man, his moral obligations would obviously be formed out of his religious core.

Seems to me, from this summary, that Shaath’s comments are a reference to the same conversation that Abu Mazen mentions but translated through some unique and highly excitable filter of his own. Arabic poetic license, as it were. Not for naught the floweriness."
 

And this from Damian Penny also resonates well with what I said:

"The "moral and religious obligation" quote sounds legit, but the "mission from God" stuff sounds like the left's most entrenched stereotypes about Dubya - which is why this story, which Bush can never adequately disprove, will be accepted as God's own truth on the left side of the blogosphere. And not just the blogosphere - already, The Independent is accepting the Mazen/Shaath version of events as established fact."
 

I don't think the US war was a mission from God either, whether Bush believes/says it or not. The real debate should never be about an alleged crusade against Islam, that's not it, countries do not go to war purely for religious reasons, and it's stupid to think that the US went to war upon the request of a bunch of "Christian Zionists" or whatever you want to call them. Karl Rove is playing domestic politics (election politics) when he embraces evangelicals and Christian fundamentalists. Many Arab writers and journalists do not understand US politics and like to connect random dots together to form whatever line they think feeds into their conspiracy theories.

That's not to say that Bush shouldn't keep religion out of the oval office. Also, the US administration is guilty of conducting a blind war on terror that makes allegations like that very easy to believe. There is a constant failure to distinguish between real friend and foe, and that's partly due to ignorance and partly to a blind addiction on hydrocarbons that is the unofficial driver of US foreign policy. US foreign policy appears to many in the Middle East like a schizoid giant that flattens people before offering them help. Because of the destructive dependence on oil, all US public diplomacy efforts, though sincere at times, eventually fail to convince people that the US is serious about spreading some of its home grown values. I am not saying democratization is not on the agenda, but it comes last after oil and “stabilization” (i.e. maintenance of friendly though autocratic regimes). It's a hard-to-swallow fact about US foreign policy that many shouldn't deny or under-emphasize just because an enemy's ideology appears to be more threatening.
 

Submitted for your approval.

Late evening, an official meeting room somewhere in DC, US and Palestinian officials are present, when suddenly:

W. Bush says: Hey Nabil (Shaath), God just talked to me the other night and told me to invade Iraq and give you a Pali state..."


Believe it ot NOT! (Jack Palance voice).

Sorry for mixing Twilight with Ripley.


Kais:
Many Arab writers and journalists do not understand US politics
Lovely understatement, most of them can't find their behind with two hands.
 

For the record, I didn't say that Bashar shouldn't be overthrown. You misread my views.

Kais, for the most part I think I agree with you on most of what you said. I'm not a big fan of Bush's social views. But his own personal beliefs are his own personal beliefs, and we shouldn't be silly to think that somehow that is what drives US policy, as you said.
 

Mike, am I to conclude that by you posting on my blog you are declaring a truce and an end to misquotes and personal insults? I don't mind arguing with you, I think we both stand to benefit from listening (and paying attention)to what the other has to say, but it has to stay civil. Do we have a deal?
 

Khaled... like I would laugh so hard right now if this weren't so tragically silly... Like, even if we restrict ourselves to the quotes that were claimed to have been made, he said that his religious and moral obligation dictate that he gives the Palestinians a state. Did you hear that?! Now, go and revisit your cliche, that is so popular in the Arab world about the "Christian Zionists" and so on... The hardcore apocalyptic millenarians that you are talking about think that a Palestinian state goes against that vision. So you basically made a paradoxical conclusion from that quote! tsk tsk tsk... Seriously people... let's try to be a taaaaaad bit smarter than cliches...
 

The mendacious Israeli parrot Tony is at it again. He believes that He alone possesses the Truth and dismisses all ideas contrary to his worldview as "silly","Laughable", Dumb, Left ,moron, liberal, Stalinist, BS , Arab nonsense,garbage, etc..
Who does this narcissist think he is.

I think that all the praise the Zionists are heaping on him is going to his head. He is their intellectual quisling.

I will try not to stoop to his level and deal with the distortions in his comments.

First,
The US Constitution endowed Congress with the power to declare war. Once war is declared, Article II, Section 2, authorizes the President, as the Commander in Chief, to execute the war. But the Constitution does not authorize the President to declare war. This war was declared by the President with a calculated media campaign before the war.It is accepted by everyone that the executive branch , the cabinet and the CIA misled Congress and the US public about WMD, Al-Qaida and Saddam, and Saddam's missile threat.

Second, Where do you conclude that anyone said that the religious nuts were controlling the world. I would argue that they are having an increasing influence in politics which is negative for world politics and our region in particular. To say that Bush's ardent religious feelings are personal and do not effect policy is ,as you would say, ludicrous and unrealistic Everyone actions are affected by their biases and prejudices even Anton efendi( even his nick reeks of self-importance).

When Arabs like Azmi Bishara oppose the invasion and occupation of Iraq they are not supporting Saddam and totalitarianism. That is a simplistic conclusion. There are more than two dimensions in this world, Tony. Your neo-con friends were well aware of the consequences of this war but they had an agenda and cleverly manoeuvred the many centers of power in the US to support their plans for the ME.

Third, we can always count on you to dismiss anything said by an Arab or their supporters regardless of its merit. Tony you are so predictable .

Fourth, "I'm surely not going to justify war based upon God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case, I pray that I will be as good a messenger of His will as possible. And then of course, I pray for forgiveness" In the quote you provided it is clear that Bush is a politician denying something in one sentence and affirming it in the next and you want us to believe that God does not determine his actions.Horse feathers.

Fifth,The schizophrenic Arabs ( we are all mentally disturbed in Tony racist world) have long memories and know that Bush like every other US president and will never create a Palestinian State .It is just talk to soothe the Arabs ,nothing more. The hard reality is given to the Palestinians and the Arabs daily by Israel's settlement activities and America's unwavering support for Israel..

Finally , You say that Bush's " personal beliefs are his own personal beliefs, and we shouldn't be silly to think that somehow that is what drives US policy" . I can't believe how naive you are. We are seeing the influence it is having on US politics daily- the Supreme court appointments , Gov't funding for faith based organizations, gay marriage and AIDS policy in Africa.

Enough I have wasted enough time on you today .

I await your infantile tantrum.

BTW. Gunslinger Josey Wales,your racism against Muslims and Arabs is showing again. There is no excuse this time it is blatant. It is worth quoting for those who missed it".Many Arab writers and journalists do not understand US politics
Lovely understatement, most of them can't find their behind with two hands." I am sure this pleased your "true" Lebanese fans but it has no place among Lebanese seeking to rebuild their country as an inclusive state.

Issam.
 

Isso Baby, you're at it again, sitting in supreme judgment of who is a racist and who is pro-Arab etc.... I know who I am and what I am and don't need your sanctimonious crap.

Your point number ONE shows that you too do not understand american politics.

Yes there are opponenst of the war. But a pompous ass like you quotes article this and article that:irrelevant. You know very well Bush could not go to war with only one faction behind him (a Prez was impeached over lying in court over a BJ).

More important: the US had an election AFTER the war and the people spoke.

At to my quip about Arab journalists, its is called a (small) exaggeration to make a point and a JOKE (look up that word in the dictionary, though many leftist dictionaries leave it out).

Futhermore I stand by what I said, name THREE intelligent columnists in Arab papers.
 

Make that three columnists who have something new and interesting and useful to say.
 

OK, before you guys start, let's try to stay civil and no name calling/labeling/intellectual bullying please.

RE the WMD issues and how Bush and co misled this country, I agree for the most part with Issam. But I also blame the US media for not waking up to the manipulation, and I am mad that not many people then realized how the war was being presented to them: something that jeopardized their national security (i.e. it was tied to a domestic concern). That was easy to pull after 9-11, and a lot can be said about the independence of the US media (but that's another discussion).

So we all agree that US foreign policy is not being driven by fanatical religious views. It's simplistic to think that there is no role for US strategic and economic interests, which in my opinion have always set the course for US actions abroad (in fact some may argue that US foreign policy has not changed much since Eisenhower, but that's another discussion).

I think Bush's religious conservative views are no secret, and his domestic policy does show that he was influenced by them, though one could also argue Bush and his advisors are playing party politics by constantly catering to the Republican Party’s ultra-conservative base. A few things we have to understand about the United States are:

1. The US is a conservative country. "Liberal" cities like New York, LA or Boston are not representative of the majority of the US voters who tend to have conservative views towards issues such as abortion, gay marriages and other social issues. I personally do not consider myself in that camp, which is interesting considering I come from an equally if not more conservative part of the world, but I cannot hold this country to a different standard than I hold my own region (though I want to because America has the potential and promise to be what it says it is), and cannot deny that real America is in Ohio, Alabama and what people here call the "red states."

2. Karl Rove's and G.W. Bush's "genius" was in finding a group of people who traditionally did not vote in elections: the evangelists and the religious conservatives and other fundamentalist groups. Bush won Texas by speaking in churches and using the language these "folks" use. To some of us it may appear simplistic and heavy on religion, but it resonates with them. This is how he won Texas and this is how he won America (though other reasons exist for why Bush won the elections twice, but playing the conservative card was one of them). One day we'll know how much of Bush's domestic policy was driven by this political agenda, and how much by his own personal religious views. We'll also know how much Bush, as a president, was independent vs. typecast for his ability to mobilize these voters. Whatever the percentages turn out to be, we cannot discount that some US politicians will do anything to get elected.

We just have to remember that politics come first. I would even say that the development of religious views is often politically motivated.

How does all this tie in to foreign policy? I don’t think Bush and co sought to please their religious voters by taking the country to war in Iraq. Look at the current drop in Bush’s approval ratings, even among his supporters, which, were partly due to the mishandling of the Katrina relief efforts, which in turn reflected badly on Bush’s abilities as president. A majority of people here now seem to think the US has no business being in Iraq, and you will remember that even before Katrina, the Bush camp was starting to lose the Iraq debate. So the Iraq war is becoming unpopular in the US, which could prove the point that had it been overwhelmingly and exclusively religiously motivated, we would not have seen such a dramatic drop in the approval ratings.

What the “neo-cons” had to do was tie the Iraq war to domestic issues to justify it. They knew there would be a lack of sympathy among certain voters who had extreme views towards “Arabs” or “Muslims”, but that wasn’t enough. Others, “liberals”, and let me stress this, MANY “liberals” supported the war on Iraq. So there was near across the board support. And Bin Laden and his cohorts cannot convince us it’s a crusade, even though Bush stupidly used that term. The US public was cleverly manipulated, and no religious views, except those manipulated to add support, motivated the war.

Josey: At the end of the day, as you probably know, domestic policy is what counts to get elected. I don’t think US voters re-elected Bush (though many, nearly half didn’t), because of his handling of Iraq. The Bush camp set the terms of the debate early on, and Kerry, though he “intellectually” won the televised debates, lost because he couldn’t fit the cast the Republican Party has successfully molded for the US presidency. But I’m digressing….

As for Bush’s alleged commitment to a Palestinian state, well, I know that many inside the beltway are committed to that, but the commitment is not translating into action on the ground. Can we tie this to the rising influence of the US religious right? These people may play a bigger role here than in the Iraq case, but that does not explain past support for Israel, which is best explained by arguing a combination of powerful lobbying and US strategic interests in the region. Israel has been given impunity by the US over the years, and it is that impunity that is destroying the peace process. It is not clear what the borders of this “Palestinian state” would look like, given the increasing settlement activity in the West Bank (lightly criticized by the US administration) and the illegal wall, among other things. It also doesn’t help that the Palestinian side is too weak now and has lost credibility, in part due to Arafat’s damaging role, Hamas’s stupidity, and Israel’s stubborn and blind strategy of “destroy everything first then announce a desire for peace.“

One final thing. When Bush addresses the nation, he is addressing the nation that is the United States. It’s almost impossible to write a universal speech that appeals to all. A priority in the mind of the speechwriters is to target the US public. That’s not to say, of course, that Bush shouldn’t probably start addressing “the world” since he is the self-proclaimed leader of the “free world.” My point is, very few analysts out there analyze his speeches in that domestic context.

Context is key.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

Scorekeeper says:

All of the very effective demonization campaign while at the same time saying that anyone that disagrees with anything is an Islamophobe or Arab hater.

Not exactly true. Let's move past generalizations in these sensitive discussions.

Even if it is true - the insults work both ways. People who criticize Israel are labeled as Anti-Semites.
 

You mentioned berkeley and columbia, which is why I responded. Anti-semite won't be used here ... but it is where I am. I didn't understand your last sentence though:

And the supposed chains of criticizing Israel have long been way broken.
 

Abbas says different.
 

I have no interest in replying to Issam. But I just wanted to clarify the real reason behind the "Efendi" business (it alone will show you Issam's "issues"). Take a look here, if you care.