« The Media Yawns at Renewed Palestinian Rocket Attacks | Main | The Media Must Also Repent »

Comments

marie

You see, It's actually simple. The likes of Bush Sr,Jr,Bill Clinton,Ehud Olmhert and the rest all see that kicking Jews out of their homes is good for the "New Middle East"..which INCLUDES a "New World Order" based on Globilization and Capitalism. Where the powerful,rich, and non
G-d fearing get to rule the world. But we know G-d laughs at their plans. I think they will have to do something with Islam soon, as this does seem to hinder things. Isn't there prophecy saying the house of Edom, etc will all lie in ruins? hmmm

M. D'Souza

Pres.Bush’s address at the UN was specifically meant for the vast majority of the tin-horn dictators at the UN.

Even without mentioning a line about Iran, the Tyrant of Tehran ranted and raved about his nuclear program that was meant for energy, and was being inhibited by Pres.Bush. But in actuality, Pres. Bush stated that he had no objections to it. There was an 8 hour interval between their speeches.

You may not have watched Brian William’s (NBC) molly coddling Iran’s pip squeak on Sept.19 (in the latter’s hotel suite) -- addressing him ‘Mr.President’ at every sentence, and submitting to him by exchanging chairs, etc. If like us, you’ve not watched this boot-licking spectacle, you can read it at the MSNBC website (Sept.20). While doing so, make sure to keep a barf bag handy!

The further fascination with the Tyrant of Tehran is exhibited by the New York Times (Sept.20), where the Tyrant has been elevated to the status of Pres.Bush by placing their pictures side by side on the front page.

Then you have the Bush-bashing brotherhood of Ahmad-in-e-jihad, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Castro of Cuba. Before arriving in the US, they had a Non-aligned Nations’ meeting in Venezuela. These are the thugs that have made a deal with the devil, and here comes Hugo Chavez calling Pres.Bush the ‘devil’. It is so repugnant!

Then comes Bush-basher’s bandwagon of the US union-organizers and the US academia – the ‘elite’ American liberals, who are invested in defeating Pres.Bush’s policies. They have been organizing speaking tours for Ahmad-in-e-jihad and Hugo Chavez, at prestigious US universities, during the past two days. Just listen to the praise and adulation for these ‘magnanimous’ dictators, from these liberal elites! Compare this to the reception they give to the Israeli speakers!

Here comes another liberal hero -- ex.Pres.Bill Clinton -- making his rounds on NBC as a Monday morning quarterback. He suggests Pres.Bush have talks with Iran. One wonders why Clinton did not have talks with OBL and enquire with him what irked him throughout the 1990s, when he attacked the US and our interests worldwide, with impunity.

So whatever Pres.Bush spoke at the UN was just appropriate, so that he did not raise the dander of these UN ‘dandies’. As we know, there are around three scores of them from Islamic nations, who are more interested in the ‘Palestinian cause’, whatever that may be.

Having foresight of all these reactions that would follow - from the Democrats, the gad-flies of the liberal media, the elite liberal academia and the liberal kooks of Hollywood - Pres.Bush’s speech at the UN was just appropriate. All these events of the past two days show us who are the real crooks and who are the ones who encourage them.

Luigi Frascati

Mr. Freund, if you are looking for a leader of the character of - say - Dwight Eisenhower in this day and age .... you are living in the wrong millennium. Specifically for one of the two reasons enunciated by your reader Marie: globalization.

That stated, remember that ladies can always change their minds - and so do Presidents ....

Hersh Mendel

I sincerely hope that Rudy Guliani can find his way to the Republican nomination and the Presidency in two years. His treatment of Arafat, in barring that terrorist from a Lincoln Center event, should be the model for how the US treats unwelcome visitors to the UN.

wowa

G. j. Bush "had not a bad day". He have (and had) a bad 6 years of his presidency. It's funny (and sceary) to see this man in speech and action.

Lee Underwood

It's nice to see that, after six years of the Bush demonic vision (the Road Map was HIS idea), you finally see what many of us have seen all that time -- George W. Bush doesn't care about Israel except as to how the U.S. can profit from using it. Please don't blame the State Department, Bush can always show some integrity (which he doesn't seem to have) and refuse their agenda and, if need be, resign. Instead, he has chosen to fight against G-d, a battle he will surely lose.

meggy

I was horrified at GBush's comments to the UN and to the US the day before standing adamant for a "two state solution." I fear that we will come under the curse spoken to Avraham. However many in the US stand with Israel and pray for the peace of Yerushalyim! And G-d will have the last word!

We hoped for someone finer and got Bush; you hoped for peace and got Olmert. Now is the time to elect statesmen, not politicians, ones who will stand for righteousness.
Ones who will not divide Israel. Israel cannot give away any more land for peace without erasing itself. Many in the US do get it however, the talk shows hosts like Glen Beck and speaker Newt Gingrich.
I am not sure if Gulliani will stand firm for Israel in the long run.

muse

I'll never forget something that the late US Pres. Reagan said about his not understanding why people thought that his being an actor was a disadvantage to being president. He stated that he considered it an important qualification.
Bush is performing just like Reagan did in films. He doesn't write his own speeches at all.
How naive can you get?

steve

Your question, your premise: "Was that really George W. Bush at the UN?" is disturbing.

Were you really shocked at Mr. Bush's speech? Isn't it George W. Bush who has routinely scolded Israel for defending herself after each and every terrorist atrocity. Wasn't it George W. Bush who, only days after the September 11, 2001 terrorist atrocities annouced his Saudi-backed vision for a Palestinian terrorist state in Israel? Wasn't it George W. Bush who sued for peace in the United Nations in order to save Iran's proxy, Hezbollah?

Wasn't it Aiel Sharon who initially begged Mr. Bush: "Do not repeat the dreadful mistake of 1938 when enlightened European democracies decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for a convenient temporary solution. Do not try to appease the Arabs on our expense."

Were you really shocked that Mr. Bush once again scolded Israel in behalf of the Palestinian Muslim people and their terrorist leaders who have "suffered from the decades of...... the daily humiliation of occupation." (?) Say it's not so. Tell us you knew this is what you've come to expect from this president. Otherwise I am shocked and disappointed.

Keith David

BUSH IS A PANSY!!

M. D'Souza

There may be any number of derogatory remarks about Pres. Bush megaphoned around by the liberal US media or the silly Hollywood celebrities. But one should not forget that Pres.Bush won the gubernatorial elections twice, to become a two-term Governor of the large State of Texas. So also he won the US presidential elections, FAIR AND SQUARE twice, to be a two-term US President.

This was DEFINITELY NOT due to Daddy Bush nor the Saudi influence. It was mainly because of his conservative values and religious principles.

Had Pres.Bush spoken like a Texas Cow Boy (as the US media, academia and celebrities often ridicule him to be) at the UN General Assembly, one can imagine the revolt in the Arab/Islamic streets. Their fury against Pope Benedict XVI's remarks was already in full blaze all around the world, during the UN meeting this year. Did we expect Pres.Bush to go to the UN and stoke those flames further by pouring gasoline over it to cause an inferno?

One should also not forget that there are a number of Clinton-era holdovers in the US State Department, who work against Pres.Bush's policies. It's like walking on egg shells there. The leakers and sneakers there distort the truth which is immediately published by the US liberal media. For these folks, anything pro-Israel seems to be anathema.

One has to be a slick-Willy to get along in this world, inorder to be appreciated.

steve

D'Souza, you wrote: "Bush won the gubernatorial elections twice, to become a two-term Governor of the large State of Texas. So also he won the US presidential elections, FAIR AND SQUARE twice, to be a two-term US President.

This was DEFINITELY NOT due to Daddy Bush nor the Saudi influence. It was mainly because of his conservative values and religious principles."


All this is true. Can you please lay out for me George W. Bush's conservative values and religious principles? Is the dismantling of the the state of Israel one of Bush's religious or Christian values? When Mr. Bush was asked about the Gaza expulsion by Yaron Deckel, Israeli Television Channel 1 in August 2005, he had the following Christian response. First Deckel:

Q As a believer, Mr. President, what do you say to Jewish believers who think that God sent them to settle in the Biblical Israel and they will not obey any decision of elected government?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know, there are admonitions in the Bible that does talk about the role of government relative to man. And Israel is a democracy and democracies are able to express the will of the people....."

Are these the Christian religious values we are to so admire in Mr. Bush?

You wrote: "One should also not forget that there are a number of Clinton-era holdovers in the US State Department, who work against Pres.Bush's policies. It's like walking on egg shells there. The leakers and sneakers there distort the truth which is immediately published by the US liberal media. For these folks, anything pro-Israel seems to be anathema."


What about leadership? What happened to leadership? Do we have a strong leader in the White House?

M. D'Souza

To Steve,

There is one answer to both your questions. It sometimes baffles us too -- as to why our leaders, who profess to be Christians and those who follow Christian values, make such ungodly decisions with regard to Israel.

Mr.Bill Koenig, who spoke at the Synagogue we attend (we are not Jews), during Rosh HaShana, last year (Oct.19-20, 2005), gave us the reason why our leadership falters when it comes to making godly decisions with regard to Israel. The answer is simple: Most of the US leaders and the crowd at Washington D.C., attend churches that preach 'Replacement Theology' - i.e. the church has replaced Israel in G-D's plan.

But not all Christian belong to that category. You will find Evangelicals among the various Christian denominations, all across the world. They are the ones who staunchly support Israel and who reject the Replacement Theology. They are now a growing majority. One of them is yet to sit in the White House, if we have to see a 100% pro-Israel stand.

steve

You wrote: "Mr.Bill Koenig, who spoke at the Synagogue we attend (we are not Jews), during Rosh HaShana, last year (Oct.19-20, 2005), gave us the reason why our leadership falters when it comes to making godly decisions with regard to Israel. The answer is simple: Most of the US leaders and the crowd at Washington D.C., attend churches that preach 'Replacement Theology' - i.e. the church has replaced Israel in G-D's plan."

Thanks for your response. I suspect you are right. Mr. Bush believes he and his church are true Israel. The Vatican says the "new people of God." Because Mr. Bush and Pope Benedict believe this, does it make it so? I've read some of Koenig's material. He has closely followed presidents, this one and past presidents, that have treated Israel wrongly, next to natural disasters. It's an interesting study.

So what you are saying is, President Bush believes God's pledge to Abraham, "I will bless those who bless you and the one who curses you, I will curse," is no longer valid or does not apply to Israel or to what Mr. Bush is doing to Israel and to the land of Israel?

I know solid Evangelicals that believe God's pledge to Abraham and to re-gathered Israel is indeed valid yet they seem to be pretty silent when it comes to this president's treatment of Israel. Why is this? Abortion, traditional marriage and religious liberty are exceedingly important but aren't God's pledges regarding Israel as important or more important? Don't Christians believe in a future Kingdom and the redemption of the earth? Where do they think the Kingdom will be if not in Jerusalem?

There was a justified outpouring of anger and outrage by Evangelicals and other conservative Christians when Mr. Bush nominated his liberal friend and attorney, Harriet Miers, for U.S. Supreme Court Justice. The outcry forced Mr. Bush to back down, yet there isn't anything similar when Mr. Bush says the most outrageous things about Israel, about Israel's and America's enemies, like he did at the U.N. the other day or when he envisions a Palestinian Muslim terrorist state and devotes considerable political energy bringing it about in Biblical Israel.

He announced his Saudi-backed "vision" only days after the Sept. 11, 2001 Muslim terrorist atrocities on American soil --- fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saud nationals ---- and then had his Neville Chamberlain-like language codified in our national Republican party platform calling for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Biblical Israel in order to have a Jew-free Muslim jihadist state in its place, all at odds with the warnings of Israel's ancient prophets. Our national party platform now "commends Israel for her willingness" to expel Jews and retreat in "the midst of daily terrorism" and violence. This is the party of Lincoln? Evangelicals are silent. They rally around President Bush. Why?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

ARUTZ-7