-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Good New Book: ‘Precipice’
May 19, 2013 | 1 comment
-
A Long Record of Obamite Thuggery
May 16, 2013 | 4 comments
-
DeMint Supports Defense
May 14, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Update on Tom Perez
May 14, 2013 | 0 comments
The Spectacle Blog
In hindsight — and to some of us even at the time, including my inexperienced 17-year-old self — the Israeli destruction of Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981 was one of the great achievements, and one of the most moral, of Israeli will triumphing over international opprobrium. Now comes the great Richard Allen to tell the tale of how the White House reacted, with Ronald Reagan almost alone (although Al Haig basically sided with Reagan) in NOT wanting to blast Israel. The interesting, but unsuprising, info is here: “The vigorous discussion provided some surprises, including the opinions presented by Vice President George H. W. Bush; the chief of staff, James Baker; and the president’s omnipresent aide, Michael Deaver. They argued strongly for punitive actions against Israel, including taking back aircraft and delaying or canceling scheduled deliveries…..”
As usual, the Baker/Bush-the-elder bias was against Israel, and friendly to Saddam. (Remember that Baker and Bush were famously friendly to Saddam UNTIL he threatened OTHER Arab oil producers.) Outrageous. It brings to mind, yet again, James Baker’s infamous remark (as ascribed to him): “F*** the Jews; they didn’t vote for us anyway.”
Well, it’s a good thing Ronald Reagan was wiser than those two supposedly realist, experienced, wise men: If Israel had been sanctioned and made to heel, and Saddam had taken enough solace at the sight of a neutered Israel for him to rebuild, then Baker and Bush would never have been able to carry out Operation Desert Storm without fear of utter cataclysm.
To this day, Baker and Bush get credited for a successful foreign policy. The credit is undeserved, on multiple fronts. Jerks.
Oldefarte| 6.7.10 @ 3:49PM
Interesting, but understandable. Bush Sr is/was of yankee decent/heretage, which indicates LIBERALISM [more than his son's southern Christianity roots]. Baker is/was a LAWYER, which pretty much 'splains it all! No doubt Reagan understood the historical fight/struggle of Jews, including today's in the middle east. Not 'jerks', but........STUPID JERKS!!!!!!!!!
Alan Brooks| 6.8.10 @ 7:39AM
As usual, the Baker/Bush-the-elder bias was against Israel, and friendly to Saddam. (Remember that "Baker and Bush were famously friendly to Saddam UNTIL he threatened OTHER Arab oil producers.) Outrageous. It brings to mind, yet again, James Baker's infamous remark (as ascribed to him): "F*** the Jews; they didn't vote for us anyway."
The more I hear about Reagan, the more I like him.
The Bushes? let's just say that Bush 41's handling of the Cold War endgame was superb.
Leave it at that.
Oldefarte| 6.7.10 @ 3:59PM
PS----Maybe, Baker and/or Bush Sr. should pay a visit to the second floor exhibit of [WashingtonD.C.'s Holocost Museum] containing a large bin of discarded SHOES from the exterminated inhabitants of Nazi death camps; and then see if they still are willing to proclaim F*** THE JEWS ????????????????
Quin| 6.7.10 @ 4:06PM
Oldefarte -- Bush and Baker were in/did legal work for the "oil bidness." They were accustomed to dealing with, and kowtowing to, Arab oil states. That is what MY suspicion is, as to why they were so biased....
William R| 6.7.10 @ 6:04PM
Bush being a former CIA chief under Gerald Ford knew about the USS Liberty incident and probably felt it was best for the United States to remain neutral in the Middle East. He more or less took the same line as President Eisenhower. That it is our best interest not to pick sides.
Oldefarte| 6.7.10 @ 8:43PM
TRUE, no doubt. The sad part is that, if our liberal Democrats hadn't jumped into political bed with environmentalists, oil companies could supply our oil-dependent economy with domestically produced energy, negate the necessity of partnering with middle eastern countries for their oil, and nullify the siphoned oil royalties supplied to terrorist organizations. Then the US would be able to support ONLY Israel in the middle east!!!!!
canuckistani| 6.7.10 @ 4:39PM
My question is what is the benefit to the US if Israel exists or does not exist any longer as a Jewish state? How is supporting a theocracy an American desire?
After 60 years and many many skirmishes, we have to decide to pull out our support for the current stupidity the Israeli government is displaying. It does not mean abandoning them if a real existential threat emerges, but it means us calling a spade a spade when dumbass policy is put into action. Remember, we pushed elections in Gaza three years ago and Hamas won. We picked up our ball and went home in protest. Why can we not have the same policy for the Knesset when the people choose Bibi over sense?
Oldefarte| 6.8.10 @ 2:05PM
We cannot abondon Israel because WE ARE THEIR ONLY SUPPORTER, and the Muslim/Arab states that surround Israel will eventually crush/eliminate ['the Jews'] if we do not support them, that's WHY [just as Nazi Germany/Communist Russia 'eliminated the jews'] in the 1930-40's]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
William R| 6.7.10 @ 5:01PM
Tuesday June 8th will be the 43 anniversary of one of this nations most disgraceful episodes. The cover up of an unprovoked attack on the defenseless USS Liberty by Israel. 34 Americans lost their lives and 171 were wounded. The Liberty is the most decorated ship in the history of the Navy. To this day the official claim is that it was a case of mistaken identity. Watch the video at the link below. It will shake you up.
http://video.google.com/videop.....117357203#
Or read Ray McGovern, 27 year veteran of the CIA, gave President Reagan his morning intelligence briefing and prepared President Bush's daily brief.
http://www.opednews.com/articl.....1-905.html
Jeff Perren | 6.7.10 @ 5:12PM
'Realists' are the most unrealistic people around. There's nothing more impractical than lacking principles. How, after all, would one decide wisely how to choose among complex alternatives without them?
Margie| 6.7.10 @ 7:39PM
Not sure what your definition of realist is, but in truth a person who thinks realistically isn't automatically unprincipled. It depends on their view of reality.
If one looks at things the way God does, and has the spiritual "eyes" that He has given them by His Grace, then he sees realistically, and chooses accordingly, to do the best thing in a given circumstance, then you have a principled realist!
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.7.10 @ 5:12PM
Quin,
Once again, thank you for "outing" the jew haters in our midst.
They are cowardly sluts aren't they?
Occam's Tool| 6.7.10 @ 7:46PM
You know, Ken, I read the responses just to read your stuff. You truly are a gentleman and a scholar.
Nate| 6.7.10 @ 5:35PM
For once I agree with Mr. Hillyer and President Reagan. While I'm appalled at the condition in which Palestinians live -- a condition that Israel bears some, but not all responsibility -- Israel is one of our closest allies and friends in the world, and we need to stick by them. The support of Saddam Hussein during the 80s was a huge and utterly incomprehensible blunder, obviously, and I think Reagan deserves some blame for it, although not in this instance.
JP| 6.7.10 @ 7:33PM
Our support for Saddam during the 80s is quite over stated. The Iraqi military who entirely dependent upon the Soviets for thier training, doctrine, equipment, and munititions (including chemical weapons). Oil prices during the first half of the 1980s were high enough to subsidize the Iraqi military. And most of our involvement and support was special operations and listening posts.
But the Left loves to make our support out to be something more than it actually was.
Nate| 6.7.10 @ 10:02PM
JP --
The support for Saddam was pretty substantial, and it included a huge number of weapons sales, in addition to all the business with the oil. I'm not saying Reagan loved Saddam, but they did do business with him. What's the number? I think it's over 4,000 American soldiers have died in that country since 03.
Nick| 6.7.10 @ 11:11PM
Nate the dazi,
"[...] a huge number of weapons sales [...]."
Care to elaborate?
How many is a "huge number?" And specifically, name the weapons sold.
Or, are you just talking out of your backside?
Roy| 6.8.10 @ 9:36AM
Not to mention, if we were supporting Saddam, we were supporting him against Iran, which is responsible for a good chunk of those 4000 deaths in Iraq.
It's always pretty infantile when the Left complains about this stuff because you would think they could understand something like:
We supported Al Qaeda, who was bad.
That was because they were fighting the Soviet Union, who was worse.
In fact, we had previously supported the Soviet Union, who was worse than Al Qaeda.
That was because they were fighting Nazi Germany, who was worse.
Not really all that complicated.
Nate| 6.8.10 @ 11:04AM
Nick
Anyone who has read a newspaper at all regularly during the past decade knows that the US supplied many weapons to Iraq -- including materials that went into making chemical weapons. I'm not going to provide you with invoices, nor do I particularly care whether you believe me or not. As Roy below says, rightly, we were trying to balance out the Iran / Iraq conflict to keep each country in check. (We sold weapons to Iran too. Or did you not read the newspaper in the late 1980s on that little issue?)
Supporting evil dictators does in fact have a price, no matter what our motivations in doing it are. We're now paying that price in Iraq.
Nick| 6.8.10 @ 4:17PM
Nate the dazi,
Soooo.......you WERE talking out your backside.
Just as I thought.
William R| 6.7.10 @ 5:59PM
When Reagan left office and wrote his memoirs he felt the United States should be neutral in the Middle East.
PCC| 6.7.10 @ 6:47PM
Baker's scatalogical remark nevertheless raises a pertinent political question as to why 80-90% of American Jews vote Democratic on a regular basis.
While this voting pattern is not exactly the same as turkeys voting for Christmas, it's in the same category.
Nick| 6.7.10 @ 8:03PM
Does anyone know if Helen Thomas is Toddard's mother?
Spicy Joker| 6.7.10 @ 11:50PM
James Baker is a creepy troll with hair plugs.
Martin j smith| 6.8.10 @ 7:07AM
I love it when the anti-semitic ( meaning anti-Jewish ) crowd comes out of the wood work. But, thanks to our friend ( eupmistically speaking, Helen Thomas--She --did me a great favor--and perhaps other pro Israel supporters, She exploded the denial of anti-Jewish feelings among many who criticize Israe in a rather frenetic,obsessive and redundant fashion. For best examples see the UN for that. The base of anti-Israel feelings is basically anti Jewish. Period.
I would say as I recall GB I and his policies-there was ( and James Baker were among the players anti-Jewish attitudes. That is my view.
Red Phillips | 6.8.10 @ 7:34AM
America's position in 1981 should have been complete neutrality. America's position in 2010 should be complete neutrality.
"they didn't vote for us anyway."
I don't condone profanity, but this part of Baker's statement is completely true, despite the slavish fidelity of the "conservative" movement, especially evangelicals, to Israel.