← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Sertorius
Thread ID: 19835 | Posts: 17 | Started: 2005-08-26
2005-08-26 15:02 | User Profile
What's next for Israel Charles Krauthammer
August 26, 2005
WASHINGTON -- The world has noted -- though it will not credit, and will soon forget -- those deeply moving scenes of the Israeli evacuation of Gaza: the discipline and self-control of the Israeli army; the cohesion of a society torn over policy but determined to follow the dictates of democracy; and the deep, abiding attachment of Israelis to every inch of soil they have reclaimed from sand and swamp.
But there was one detail of the evacuation that went little noticed: the manner of the evacuation of the great menorah from the last synagogue of the last settlement to be evacuated, Netzarim. This menorah is not the nine-branched Hanukkah thingie that shows up on an equal-time basis by the shopping-mall reindeer display at Christmas time. It is the seven-branched candelabra -- like the one that was in the ancient temple in Jerusalem and is today the official seal of the state of Israel.
The Gaza menorah was carried off in a very remarkable and significant way, perched on a horizontal rod borne on the shoulders of men walking one behind the other.
Seen in profile, that image has a shocking familiarity. If you go to the eastern entrance of the Roman forum today, you will see the huge triumphal Arch of Titus erected in A.D. 81 to commemorate the conquest of the Jews and the destruction of the Jewish state -- Judea -- in A.D. 70. One of the friezes shows the seven-branched menorah they were carrying out of the temple in Jerusalem -- as booty and symbol of the conquest of Judea -- perched on a long horizontal staff borne by Roman soldiers walking one behind the other.
No one steeped in Jewish history could fail to see the intended resemblance. The intended message was that the Gaza evacuation was a replay of the Roman conquest -- made all the more cruel and ironic because this time it was carried out by fellow Jews.
In my view, the religious messianists who are saying this are totally wrong in their strategic assessment. Gaza was a necessary retreat in order to hold higher, more defensible and more critical ground elsewhere.
Nonetheless, the parallel images carried an unintended truth. It is not the Gaza withdrawal itself, but what follows that could lead to another and final extinction of Jewish independence, this time not just for 2,000 years but forever.
What follows is the world saying, almost in unison, that the Gaza evacuation is just the beginning of a total Israeli retreat, one Dunkirk to be followed by many more. What follows is Condoleezza Rice declaring that ``it cannot be Gaza only,'' a thrilling encouragement to the Palestinians jeering the Israeli withdrawal with chants of ``Gaza today, Jerusalem tomorrow.''
Is this what the Bush administration wants? More unilateral concessions to an implacable enemy whose ``moderate'' leader, Mahmoud Abbas, declares that ``we will not rest until they leave from all our land'' -- when Palestinian maps show ``our land'' as nothing less than all of British Palestine with Israel totally eradicated?
This is a prescription for Israel's suicide. Or rather murder, because the Israelis are not prepared to march blindly into further unrequited concessions. The final concession will be getting into boats and sailing back to where? Poland?
In his policy-setting Rose Garden speech of June 2002, President Bush explicitly endorsed a Palestinian state and said that to achieve it, the next step was up to the Palestinians. Since then the only thing the Palestinians have done is to bury Yasser Arafat, an act of reverence but not exactly initiative.
In the interim, the Israelis have withdrawn from Gaza, destroyed four West Bank settlements to create geographic contiguity for Palestinian territory in the northern West Bank, and once again repeated their support of a Palestinian state. The Palestinian response has been Katyusha rockets into Sderot, promises of renewed terrorism and chants for total victory.
The Arabs are a great people. They have 21 states stretching from the Atlantic to the frontier of Persia. They will soon have a 22nd state called Palestine. The only question is whether its establishment will be on the grave of the world's only Jewish state.
What is at stake is whether the world, led by the United States, will demand Arab acceptance of that single Jewish state, or whether the United States will continue to push Israel from one concession to another until one day another arch is erected, this time in Jerusalem itself, commemorating the destruction of history's third and last Jewish commonwealth.
Who gives a damn?
The Arabs are a great people. They have 21 states stretching from the Atlantic to the frontier of Persia. They will soon have a 22nd state called Palestine. The only question is whether its establishment will be on the grave of the world's only Jewish state.
The dumbasses should have though about this before deciding to locate their "country" in that sandbox. [img]http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/titus/spoils2005sm.jpg[/img] What Chuck is upset over. A close up of the above can be found here: [url]http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/titus/spoilsdet2005.jpg[/url] [img]http://www.townhall.com/graphics1/columnists/krauthammer.gif[/img] A dressed up photo of the evil looking Krauthammer
2005-08-26 15:25 | User Profile
Krauthammer certainly knows that the land on which Israel sits on was stolen and that the only reason it's even still in existence is because of the all the American money, which people like Krauthammer help milk from the American sheeple. The "descendants" of Abraham currently in Israel have no blood connection to their patriarch. It's so ridiculuous.
BTW, I was in Italy several months ago and saw the Arch of Titus at the Roman Forum. Of course, our tour guide pointed out the stolen menorah first things first. Oy, the poisecution neva ends!
2005-08-26 15:48 | User Profile
XM,
I'm sorry I never got to Italy. I would have loved to have travelled down the Appian Way and seen Rome. I'm surprised that the local Jews haven't demanded the destruction of this work of art. This is an obvious case of "antisemitism". To think, the very idea of the evil Romans rubbing the noses of "god's chosen people" into the dirt like that after all that has occurred! Too bad that the Romans didn't put into effect Jerusalem est delenda. [QUOTE]This is a prescription for Israel's suicide. Or rather murder, because the Israelis are not prepared to march blindly into further unrequited concessions. The final concession will be getting into boats and sailing back to where? Poland?[/QUOTE] There's always Madagascar.
2005-08-26 15:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]XM,
I'm sorry I never got to Italy. I would have loved to have travelled down the Appian Way and seen Rome. [/QUOTE]
Sert, it's never too late to go. Rome isn't going anywhere. I highly recommend that if you have one trip to take in your life, go to Rome. Even if for 5-6 days, those days will be the most unforgettable in your life. We travelled throughout Italy, Florence, Venice, but Rome is just simply the Eternal City.
2005-08-27 14:55 | User Profile
Poor little whining Jews having to give back a small piece of there precious 'stolen land'.
8,000 Jews where never going to hold out against 1.2 million Palestinians in Gaza and even they realise that.
The Palestinians incorrectly view this as a weakening position. They are simply doing something that they already had agreed to do whilst milking it for full effect. Sharon will undoubtedly use this "concession" to pump more money out of America whilst consolidating his over stretched forces and reducing defence costs. Israel's priority is clearly to defend it's interior.
The Palestinians and Jews will never agree on Jerusalem and neither are intent on peace. Which is a pity really as this conflict is not at all in our interests. The Arabs and Jews where very wrong to seek to draw Europeans and Americans into this configuration and have now created very serious long term security problems for both us and themselves.
Greg
"I found myself back in the sepulchral city resenting the sight of people hurrying through the streets to filch a little money from each other, to devour their infamous cookery, to gulp their unwholesome beer, to dream their insignificant and silly dreams. They trespassed upon my thoughts. They were intruders whose knowledge of life was to me an irritating pretence, because I felt so sure they could not possibly know the things I knew." - Heart of Darkness : Joseph Conrad [pg.102]
2005-08-27 15:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]What's next for Israel The world has noted -- though it will not credit, and will soon forget -- those deeply moving scenes of the Israeli evacuation of Gaza[/QUOTE] Kikes are really legends in their own minids. The world does not fvcking care about you, kikes. Neither kike "sufferink" is deeply moving. Why is this published in a national newspaper rather than some zhid fishwrap?
2005-08-27 18:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE] [B]Sertorius[/B] [CENTER][B]What's next for Israel[/B][/CENTER] Charles Krauthammer
...This is a prescription for Israel's suicide. Or rather murder, because the Israelis are not prepared to march blindly into further unrequited concessions. The final concession will be getting into boats and sailing back to where? Poland?[/QUOTE]I alert the board to the rumor that Charles Krauthammer is so concerned with American policy that he will attempt to invigorate our resolve. Sometime next week he will take a swan dive from the [I]Achille Lauro[/I].
2005-08-27 19:09 | User Profile
Oy...the screaming of the gassed babies - a second holocaust, itz! Not.
[QUOTE][url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4151742.stm[/url] [B]Compensation calculation [/B]
Leaving aside the ideological gap, **there is little question of the generosity of the deal paid to evacuees, many of them beneficiaries of government subsidies for settling the land.
An average family can expect to receive about $250,000 (ã140,000) compensation, depending on house size, the number of children and length of residence in the occupied territories.
On top of that there are removals expenses, two years' free rent, redundancy compensation and what Mr Altman calls a "bonus" of $30,000 if the family stays put in a community being established to house them.
Farmers will receive an extra amount for leaving the land they have worked, that under a complex calculation could increase the sum to $400,000. [/B] [/QUOTE]
Paid to settle in Gaza with US taxpayer money; and now paid handsomely to leave with US taxpayer money. Krauthammer howls 'genocide' at the moon while the cash register rings [I]twice[/I]. Ka-ching! Ka-ching!
2005-08-27 19:10 | User Profile
You are paying for it.
2005-08-27 19:27 | User Profile
The writings of Jews, whether it be the cynical Ziocon variety of the Krauthammers or the messanic blathering of the Pragers just illustrates the insanity of Jewish tribal thought. While some of this thought is simply a ploy, there is alot of it where they actually believe this crap that everyone else is out to get them while refusing to see it is their own behaviour that provokes such responses. The craziness of this group of people unfortunately has rubbed off far too many of the general public at large to the point where it is not only for someone like Prager that everyday is Kristalnacht, 1938, but for far too many Gentiles as well. Call it a massive induction of a variety of the Stockholm syndrome. These deluded Gentiles of the "Conservative" bent seem to think that Israel and the US are the same country.
2005-08-28 19:29 | User Profile
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Issue One: Homeless in Gaza.
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU (FORMER ISRAELI FINANCE MINISTER): (From videotape.) I cannot be a partner to a move that I think compromises the security of Israel. Gaza will become an Islamic terrorist base which will endanger not only Israel, but many others in the world.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's finance minister, resigned last week in protest. Israel's unilateral withdrawal from 21 Jewish settlements in Gaza Netanyahu finds dangerous and deplorable. He stunned the Sharon cabinet by walking out of a meeting, several hours underway, announcing his resignation. "The pullout from Gaza by Israel could not be stopped," he admitted. Shortly after his departure, the cabinet voted 17-5 to press on with the unilateral withdrawal of 9,000 Jewish settlers from the Palestinian-populated Gaza.
There is tumult from extremists on both sides -- killings, shootings, abductions. Besides violence, lawlessness is rampant -- carjackings, kidnapping, extortion. Remains of dead Jews are being exhumed, and all graves will be moved to a cemetery inside Israel.
The pain of the Jewish settlers is wrenching. The Jewish settlers have until the 17th, Wednesday, to become homeless in Gaza.
Prime Minister Sharon has requested $2.2 billion over four years from the Bush administration for the costs of the pullout and relocation.
Question: Should the U.S. foot the bill for the resettlement of the Gaza Jews inside Israel? Pat Buchanan. [B] MR. BUCHANAN: Well, that's $2.2 billion, John. There are about 1,900 settler families there. That's over a million dollars for each settler family, when we give $100,000 for the family of every American killed in Iraq.
This is an outrage to request that kind of money. We don't owe a dime here. The Israelis should not have moved into Gaza. It was never their territory. They went in there against our advice and counsel and against international law. They should pay the price of the withdrawal here. [/B]
[[I]I wish they had shown the expression on Zuckerman's face when Pat said this.[/I]]
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, it's over four years. Also, war costs more money than resettlement.
MR. BUCHANAN: Why should it cost the American taxpayers a dime?
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Eleanor.
MS. CLIFT: Well, Gaza should have been settled 20 years ago. And the tragedy is now that it pits Jew against Jew, and it also produces a fresh grievance for Netanyahu and other politicians on the extreme right to continue the division that we now see within Israel.
In terms of the money, I think if it comes to that, I think that it's worth it to pay for peace if it comes to -- if it's presented to the U.S. Congress. But I think we do send a lot of money to Israel, and I think the preferable position would be for them to underwrite this. But if it comes to a political issue in this country, they have a very strong position on Capitol Hill. And this is an important step in the peace process. It's probably worth paying for.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: If you amortize that over four years, that's less money than we pay per month in Iraq. MR. BLANKLEY: Yeah. I mean, I don't think it should be seen, as Pat sees it, as a per-person payment. On that basis, I agree with Pat. But if you see it the same way Clinton saw it, you know, as part of trying to resolve a peace process, you have to -- we're going to give money to the Palestinians; we're going to give money all the way around, the same way the British did. They spend money to buy peace. And in that sense, if it leads to peace -- I have my doubts that it will -- I think it's probably money well spent. And Israel is voluntarily giving up the land that she's held for some time now, and that's a pretty unusual event.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Would you not agree that this will establish a precedent and this will mean money for the Palestinians because they have been displaced too, and that it's money well spent, because if there is peace there, that will be one of the principal components of the cancer of terrorism?
MR. ZUCKERMAN: There's no doubt about that. This money, as Tony is saying, is not going to the individual families. It's going to cover a lot of costs, including a lot of security costs that come under the fact that now it is, in all likelihood, going to be Hamas that's going to take over Gaza. And there's also another sector in the northern part of the West Bank that the Israelis are withdrawing from, as what they have made clear is a down payment on further withdrawals from the West Bank.
[Mort, y'all should have thought about this before you created Hamas. Blowback, anyone?]
So I think we are, if there is -- if Gaza becomes a template, if it becomes an area where there is reconciliation and constructive activity rather than another platform for terrorism, I think there's a much more viable hope for a future peace settlement.
Right now it looks very, very bad. As you pointed out in the piece, there are armed gangs all over the place. That has become a state of anarchy. Abu Mazen has not done anything to tamp down on the terrorists. Islamic Jihad has completely abandoned the so-called (comitabiya ?).
So there is going to be, I think, an explosion in terms of what's going to happen out of Gaza in the next 60 or 90 days that is going to create enormous problems for the prospects of peace going forward.
And that's the most distressing part about it.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Is it a consolidation of the population of Israel?
MR. ZUCKERMAN: Well --
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: And is it also --
MR. ZUCKERMAN: There was never any Israeli prime minister or any real faction in Israel who said, "We have to remain in Gaza." That was not it. The issue was, do you walk out without real concessions from the Palestinians? Do you encourage terror by walking out without that? That's what --
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Is it also establishing defensible, clear boundaries for Israel?
MR. ZUCKERMAN: Absolutely.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Does that mean that the war will -- the division between the two will be lessened; there will be a de facto partition --
MR. ZUCKERMAN: Yes.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: -- until there is some resolution of the side- by-side states?
MR. ZUCKERMAN: Well, but the --
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What I meant was, by this triggering terrorism, what I meant was it helps the recruitment of al Qaeda because of the TV-portrayed aggression on both sides. Correct?
MR. ZUCKERMAN: Well, I don't know about that. I mean, there is --
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, they see it all the time.
MR. ZUCKERMAN: There is no shortage -- the recruitment of terrorists there is caused, more than anything else, by the incitement to hatred that you have on every public platform in the Palestinian community -- every school, every television station, every imam. That's where it's coming from.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, that is broadcast throughout the Muslim world.
MR. ZUCKERMAN: Yes, absolutely.
MS. CLIFT: And the --
MR. BUCHANAN: John, what about --
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: So, therefore, it enables recruitment. If that went away, you will admit that, in your view, terrorism would recede somewhat?
MR. BUCHANAN: John, what about some balance here?
MR. ZUCKERMAN: It would certainly reduce some of the issues that exist between the Muslim extremists and the West. There's no doubt about that.
MR. BUCHANAN: John --
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I don't see how they could spend our money any better.
MR. BUCHANAN: Oh, for heaven's sake. (Laughs.)
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: And when the Palestinians come along, I would give them a couple of billion dollars easily, readily.
MR. ZUCKERMAN: They're going to get $9 billion from the West. Three billion dollars is being arranged right now by Jim Wolfensohn, who is the representative of the quartet.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: And the Israelis approve of that. Anything that would help the Palestinians to recover, correct?
MR. ZUCKERMAN: The hope -- it gives them a hope that they'll recover.
MR. BUCHANAN: John --
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What are they asking for, $9 billion?
MR. ZUCKERMAN: They're going to get $9 billion.
MR. BUCHANAN: (Laughs.)
MR. ZUCKERMAN: The Palestinians are getting $9 billion. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I think that's terrific if we can buy our way out of that situation.
MR. ZUCKERMAN: I agree with you.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I've been recommending that since the beginning.
MR. ZUCKERMAN: I agree with you.
MS. CLIFT: I don't question Abbas's sincerity. I think he does want to tamp down the violence. The question is, does he have any, what they call in the diplomatic world, deliverables.
MR. BLANKLEY: Careful.
MS. CLIFT: Can he -- deliverables. Can he actually present anything and give these people any hope that he can make their lives better? And to do that, he needs help from the West and he needs money, too. And so if there's some balance here --
MR. BUCHANAN: There is no balance.
MS. CLIFT: -- maybe there's, you know, balance on both sides.
MR. BUCHANAN: There is no balance. John, if you've got $2 billion, these poor Palestinians are poor as church mice in Gaza. The Israelis probably have 20 times the income they do. We're giving the Israelis the $2.2 billion. The Israelis are one one-hundredth of the population and got 25 percent of the land. What about a little more balance? There's a reason why there's such hatred on the part of the Palestinians, and it's because horrible injustices have been done to them for 50 years.
MR. ZUCKERMAN: Fifty years.
MR. BLANKLEY: But there's another point. Beyond the money, what General Sharon is doing is being a good general. He is bringing -- he's removing the (salients ?) that are either indefensible or defensible only at a high cost and getting to a point, a consolidated place, that can be defended with relatively low terrorism internally in Israel, and then wait for the Palestinians if they're ever able to be a negotiating partner.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Is Netanyahu a prophet or is he a spoiler?
MR. ZUCKERMAN: Well, we're going to find out. There is a -- he makes a very legitimate case. I'm not sure it's the right case, but it certainly is a legitimate case felt by a large portion of the Israelis. But the Israelis are willing to take the risk, in part because their choices are bad and worse. They don't have good choices.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: He's a spoiler. What happens -- if Gaza fails, if it sours, then he wins, and he's set up to return to office, which he ambitions greatly, that of prime minister. Correct?
MR. ZUCKERMAN: Absolutely. But he was primed to succeed Sharon in any event.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Really?
MR. ZUCKERMAN: He didn't need this to do it. I met with him just several weeks ago. He feels very, very strongly about this that it is an unacceptable risk. Now, Sharon feels it's an acceptable risk. There are two legitimate arguments.
MS. CLIFT: Well, it could force --
MR. ZUCKERMAN: I support Sharon's view of this thing.
MS. CLIFT: It could force the alliance once again between Sharon and the liberal Labor Party. And if they can do that and have some sort of unity government, maybe they can keep the religious extremists, which is what Netanyahu represents, keep them on the sideline.
MR. BLANKLEY: I think there's something sort of unsound about this.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What? What? What?
MR. BLANKLEY: Netanyahu is pulling out at this point when he can't affect the decision. At this point, it seems to me a responsible statesman stays in for the process. He's taken this position, but to theatrically leave --
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, he's a spoiler.
MR. BUCHANAN: That's exactly right. The guy's a complete opportunist here. And you're right when you said, John, look, if this thing blows up, he can say, "I was right." And there's a huge constituency over there that doesn't want to give up an inch of land. He gets that by default.
[And over here as well that "Bibi" can count on.]
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What happens if it's a success, if it doesn't sour? Then he's sidelined forever, is he not?
MR. BUCHANAN: It's not going to be a complete success.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Is he sidelined forever? This is a two-edged sword.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: It's not going to be a success. (Laughs.)
MR. BLANKLEY: It's never been a complete success.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Exit question: Will the U.S. Congress okay the funds to help move the Gaza settlers to Israel, yes or no? Pat Buchanan.
[B]MR. BUCHANAN: They will roll over every time.[/B]
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Eleanor.
MS. CLIFT: I think if it gets to that point, they will okay it, yes.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Tony.
MR. BLANKLEY: If the president submits it, it'll get passed by Congress.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Mort.
MR. ZUCKERMAN: I think Tony's absolutely right. If the president submits it, it'll get passed by the Congress.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Are the Jewish settlers in Gaza moving the graves to a cemetery for all the remains in Israel?
MR. ZUCKERMAN: They're moving graves and synagogues. Everything else virtually is going to be demolished except for what is going to be transferred to the Palestinians, such as the greenhouses. That might provide a basis for some kind of economy there.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The answer is yes, Congress will provide the funds.
[url]http://www.mclaughlin.com/library/transcript.asp?id=479[/url]
2005-08-28 20:18 | User Profile
It's moments like this that I love Buchanan and hate my quisling government.
Note that Pat is the only one who definitively answers the question "[B]should we[/B] pay?"
The rest of these talking heads....weasels all...caredully frame their answers as though the question was "[I]will[/I] we pay?" That's the nature of journalism today, though. Everybody will climb over the other guy to volunteer the safe toothless opinion that covers them in glory and virtue. When they're asked the yes-or-no question that might anger their deep-pocketed sponsors and benefactors, they all simultaneously misplace their vertebra.
[QUOTE][B]Question: Should the U.S. foot the bill for the resettlement of the Gaza Jews inside Israel? [/B]
MR. BUCHANAN: This is an outrage to request that kind of money. We don't owe a dime here.
MS. CLIFT: In terms of the money, I think if it comes to that, I think that it's worth it to pay for peace if it comes to -- if it's presented to the U.S. Congress. But I think the preferable position would be for them to underwrite this. But if it comes to a political issue in this country, [B]they have a very strong position on Capitol Hill[/B]. And this is an important step in the peace process. It's probably worth paying for.
MR. BLANKLEY: Yeah. I mean, I agree with Pat. If it leads to peace -- I have my doubts that it will -- I think it's probably money well spent. [/QUOTE]
Let's cut the bs. [B]Here [/B] is what the world sees any time the question "Israel or America?" is asked of a highly-paid American media whore:
[QUOTE][url]http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode06.htm[/url]
[I]A film producer's office. Six writers sitting round a table with one very impressive chair empty at the head of the table. They wait reverently. Suddenly the door of the room flies open and Larry Saltzberg, the film producer, walks in. The writers leap to their feet. [/I]
Larry [COLOR=Navy]Good morning boys[/COLOR].
Writers [COLOR=Navy]Good morning Mr Saltzberg!![/COLOR]
[I]They run to help him into his chair. [/I]
Larry I [/I] [COLOR=Navy]Sit down! Sit down! Sit down! Sit down! Now, boys, I want you to know that I've had an idea for the next movie I'm going to produce and I want you boys to write it.[/COLOR]
[I]The writers run and kiss him[/I].
Writers [COLOR=Navy]Thank you. Thank you. [/COLOR]
Larry [COLOR=Navy]Oh sit down! Sit down! Sit down! There'll be plenty of time for that later on. Now boys, here's my idea... [/COLOR]
Third Writer [COLOR=Navy]It's great! [/COLOR]
Larry [COLOR=Navy]You like it huh? [/COLOR] I [/I]
Writers I [/I] [COLOR=Navy]Yeah, yeah, great! Really great. Fantastic. [/COLOR] I [/I]
Larry I [/I] [COLOR=Navy]Do [B]you [/B] like it? [/COLOR]
First Writer I [/I] [COLOR=Navy]Yeah! Er ... yeah[/COLOR].
Larry I [/I] [COLOR=Navy]What do you like best about it? [/COLOR]
First Writer [COLOR=Navy]Oh well you haven't told us... what it is yet... [/COLOR]
Larry [COLOR=Navy]WHAT!? [/COLOR]
First Writer I [/I] [COLOR=Navy]I like what he likes. [/COLOR]
Larry [COLOR=Navy]What do you like? [/COLOR]
Second Writer I [/I] [COLOR=Navy]I like what he likes. [/COLOR]
Third Writer I [/I] [COLOR=Navy]I like what he likes. [/COLOR]
Fourth Writer [COLOR=Navy]I like what he likes [/COLOR] I[/I]
Fifth Writer [COLOR=Navy]I'm just crazy about what [I]he [/I] likes [/COLOR] I[/I]
Larry [COLOR=Navy]What do [I]you [/I] like?[/COLOR]
Sixth Writer [COLOR=Navy]I ... I ... I ... agree with them.[/COLOR]
Larry Good! [COLOR=Navy]Now we're getting somewhere. Now, here's the start of the movie ... I see snow! [/COLOR] I [/I] [COLOR=Navy]White snow! [/COLOR]
Fourth Writer [COLOR=Navy]Think of the colours! [/COLOR]
Larry [COLOR=Navy]And in the snow, I see ... [I]a tree! [/I][/COLOR]
Writers I [/I] [COLOR=Navy]Yes! Yes! [/COLOR]
Larry [COLOR=Navy]Wait, wait I haven't finished yet. [/COLOR]
Third Writer [COLOR=Navy]There's [U]more[/U]? [/COLOR]
Larry [COLOR=Navy]And by this tree, gentlemen, I see ... [I]a dog![/I] [/COLOR]
Writers [COLOR=Navy]Olé! [/COLOR]
Larry [COLOR=Navy]And gentlemen, this dog goes up to the tree, and... he... [B]piddles on it![/B] [/COLOR]
Writers [COLOR=Navy]Hallelujah! [/COLOR]
Sixth Writer [COLOR=Navy]Have we got a movie! [/COLOR]
Fifth Writer [COLOR=Navy]He tells it the way it is! [/COLOR]
Fourth Writer [COLOR=Navy]It's where it's at! [/COLOR]
Third Writer [COLOR=Navy]This is something else! [/COLOR]
Second Writer [COLOR=Navy]It's out of sight! [/COLOR]
First Writer I [/I] [COLOR=Navy]I [I]like [/I] it, I [I]like [/I] it![/COLOR]
Larry I [/I] [COLOR=Navy]Oh [I]yeah?[/I][/COLOR]
First Writer [COLOR=Navy]Yeah, yeah, I promise I like it [/COLOR]
Fifth Writer [COLOR=Navy]Sir, I don't know how to say this but I got to be perfectly frank. I really and truly believe this story of yours is the greatest story in motion-picture history. [/COLOR]
Larry [B][COLOR=Navy]Get out![/COLOR][/B]
Fifth Writer [COLOR=Navy]What? [/COLOR]
Larry [B][COLOR=Navy]If there's one thing I can't stand, it's a yes-man! Get out! [/COLOR] [/B] I [/I] [COLOR=Navy]I'll see you never work again. [/COLOR] I [/I] [COLOR=Navy]What do [I]you [/I] think? [/COLOR]
Sixth Writer [COLOR=Navy]Well... I... [/COLOR]
Larry [COLOR=Navy]Just because I have an idea it doesn't mean it's great. It could be lousy. [/COLOR]
Sixth Writer [COLOR=Navy]It [I]could?[/I][/COLOR]
Larry [COLOR=Navy]Yeah! What d'ya think? [/COLOR]
Sixth Writer [COLOR=Navy]It's... lousy. [/COLOR]
Larry [COLOR=Navy]There you are, you see, he spoke his mind. He said my idea was lousy. It just so happens my idea isn't lousy [B]so get out you goddam pinko subversive, get out! [/B] [/COLOR] I [/I] [COLOR=Navy]You... [/COLOR] I [/I]
Fourth Writer [COLOR=Navy]Well ... I think it's an excellent idea.[/COLOR]
Larry [COLOR=Navy]Are you a yes-man? [/COLOR]
Fourth Writer [COLOR=Navy]No, no, no, I mean there may be things against it. [/COLOR]
Larry [COLOR=Navy]You think it's lousy, huh? [/COLOR]
Fourth Writer [COLOR=Navy]No, no, I mean it takes time. [/COLOR]
Larry I [/I] [B][COLOR=Navy]Are you being indecisive? [/COLOR] [/B]
Fourth Writer [COLOR=Navy]Yo. Nes. Perhaps![/COLOR] I [/I]
Larry [COLOR=Navy]I hope you three gentlemen aren't going to be indecisive! [/COLOR] I[/I] [I][COLOR=Navy]What the hell are you doing under that table? [/COLOR] [/I]
First Writer [COLOR=Navy]We dropped our pencils. [/COLOR]
Larry [COLOR=Navy]Pencil droppers, eh? [/COLOR]
Writers [COLOR=Navy]No, no, no, no, no! [/COLOR]
Larry [COLOR=Navy]Right. Now I want your opinion of my idea ... [/COLOR] I [/I] [COLOR=Navy][U]You[/U]...[/COLOR]
First Writer I [/I] [COLOR=Navy]Oh... [/COLOR]
[I]First writer looks around and then faints[/I].
Larry [COLOR=Navy]Has he had a heart attack? [/COLOR]
Second and Third Writers [COLOR=Navy]Er... [/COLOR]
Larry [COLOR=Navy]If there's one thing I can't stand, [B]it's people who have heart attacks!![/B].[/COLOR]
First Writer I [/I] [COLOR=Navy]I feel fine now. [/COLOR]
Larry [COLOR=Navy]Well, what do you think? [/COLOR]
Writers [COLOR=Navy]Oh! Eh! You didn't ask me you asked him. He didn't ask me, he asked him. No, him.[/COLOR]
Larry [COLOR=Navy]I've changed my mind. I'm asking you, the one in the middle. [/COLOR]
Second Writer [COLOR=Navy]The one in the middle? [/COLOR]
Larry [COLOR=Navy]Yes, the one in the middle. [/COLOR] I [/I] [COLOR=Navy]Hello, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, Dimitri ... [/COLOR] I [/I] [I][COLOR=Navy]What the hell are you doing? [/COLOR] [/I]
Second Writer [COLOR=Navy]I'm thinking.[/COLOR]
Larry [U][COLOR=Navy]Get back in those seats immediately![/COLOR][/U] I [/I] [COLOR=Navy]Yes... [/COLOR] I [/I] [COLOR=Navy]Right.... [B]you[/B]. The one in the middle, what do you think? [/COLOR]
Second Writer I [/I] [COLOR=Navy]Er... er... [/COLOR]
Larry [COLOR=Navy][B]Come on![/B] [/COLOR]
Second Writer [COLOR=Navy][I][U][B]Splunge[/B][/U][/I]. [/COLOR]
Larry [COLOR=Navy]Did he say [I]splunge?[/I] [/COLOR]
First and Third Writers [COLOR=Navy]Yes.[/COLOR]
Larry [COLOR=Navy]What does [I]splunge [/I] mean? [/COLOR]
Second Writer [COLOR=Navy]It means ... it's a great-idea-but-possibly-not-and-I'm-not-being-indecisive! [/COLOR]
Larry [COLOR=Navy]Good. Right . .. [/COLOR] I [/I] [COLOR=Navy]What do you think? [/COLOR]
Third Writer [COLOR=Navy]Er. Splunge? [/COLOR]
Larry [COLOR=Navy]OK... [/COLOR]
First Writer [COLOR=Navy]Yeah. Splunge for me too. [/COLOR]
Larry [COLOR=Navy]So all three of you think splunge, huh? [/COLOR]
Writers [COLOR=Navy][B]Yes! [/B] [/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
2005-08-30 16:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=edward gibbon]I alert the board to the rumor that Charles Krauthammer is so concerned with American policy that he will attempt to invigorate our resolve. Sometime next week he will take a [COLOR=Red]swan d[/COLOR]ive from the [I]Achille Lauro[/I].[/QUOTE]I must take umbrage that my post was not noticed for what it was. Am I the only old fart on the board?
[QUOTE][url]http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/achille.html[/url]
[B][CENTER]Terror Aboard the [I]Achille Lauro[/I][/CENTER][/B]
By Mitchell Bard
On October 7, 1985, four members of one of the PLO's factions, the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), hijacked the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro and demanded the release of Palestinian prisoners held in Israel. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak persuaded the hijackers to surrender, [COLOR=Red]but not before they shot to death a wheelchair-bound Jewish passenger from the United States named Leon Klinghoffer, dumping his body overboard.[/COLOR]
Mubarak allowed the PLF leader and hijacking mastermind, Mohammed Abbas, and the other terrorists to fly to their headquarters in Tunisia. President Ronald Reagan sent U.S. warplanes to intercept the flight, however, and forced it to land at a U.S.-Italian air base in Sicily. The United States and Italy fought over jurisdiction in the case, but the Italians refused to extradite any of the men.
Inexplicably, Abbas was allowed to go to Yugoslavia. An Italian court convicted 11 of 15 others associated with the hijacking, while Abbas and another terrorist were tried in absentia and found guilty. Abbas was sentenced to life in prison. Bassam al-Asker, one of the Achille Lauro hijackers, was granted parole in 1991. Ahmad Marrouf al-Assadi, another accomplice, disappeared in 1991 while on parole.
Abbas was never arrested. In 1990, he struck again from the sea, with an abortive speedboat attack on bathers on a beach near Tel Aviv. Though he was sentenced to five life terms in Italy, and was wanted in the United States, Abbas remained a free man. He spent most of the years after the hijacking in Tunisia before moving to the Gaza Strip in April 1996, after the Palestinian Authority took control of the area as part of the peace agreement with Israel.
While in Gaza, Abbas said he was sorry for the hijacking, but the daughters of Leon Klinghoffer said that Abbas had been convicted of murder and should serve his sentence (CNN, April 23, 1996). As a result of the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian interim peace agreement, however, Abbas and other PLO members were granted immunity for violent acts committed before the signing of the September 1993 Oslo agreement.
Abbas eventually made his way to Iraq where he was believed to be a conduit for Saddam Hussein's payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Abbas was captured by U.S. forces in a raid in Iraq on April 15, 2003. He died on March 9, 2004, at the age of 56 in U.S. custody in Iraq. Klinghoffer's daughters said, ââ¬ÅNow, with his death, justice will be denied. The one consolation for us is that Abul Abbas died in captivity, not as a free man.ââ¬Â
Sources: Mitchell G. Bard. [B][I]The Complete Idiot's Guide to Middle East Conflict[/I][/B]. 2nd Edition. NY: Alpha Books, 2003; Associated Press, (March 10, 2004).[/QUOTE]
A Biography of Our Heroic Hawk [QUOTE]Charles Krauthammer ââ¬Â¢ Pulitzer Prize Winner for Distinguished Commentary ââ¬Â¢ Washington Post columnist The late Meg Greenfield, editorial page editor of The Washington Post, called Charles Krauthammer's column "independent and hard to peg politically. It's a very tough column. There's no 'trendy' in it. You never know what is going to happen next."
A column, says Mr. Krauthammer, is not just politics. `My beat is ideas, everything from the ethics of cloning to strategy in Afghanistan. I also do public service, like reading Stephen Hawking's books and assuring my readers thatIt is not you, they are entirely incomprehensible."
Perhaps Mr. Krauthammer's most important mission as a columnist is to challenge conventional wisdom. Hence eight years of columns warning that the Oslo peace accords were a fraud and a deception, doomed to fail. Alas, he was proved correct.
Charles Krauthammer [COLOR=Red]was born in 1950 in New York City[/COLOR]. He grew up in Montreal and was educated at McGill University (B A. with First Class Honors in Political Science and Economics, 1970), Oxford University (Commonwealth Scholar in Politics at Balliol College, 1970-71), and Harvard University (MD, Harvard Medical School, 1975).
From 1975-78 he practiced medicine as a Resident and then Chief Resident in Psychiatry at the Massachusetts General Hospital His scientific papers, including his co-discovery of a form of manic-depressive illness, are still frequently cited in the psychiatric literature.
[QUOTE]Krauthammer obtained a first-class honors degree in political science and economics from McGill University in 1970, and was a Commonwealth Scholar in politics at Balliol College, Oxford 1970-71. In his freshman year at medical school in 1972, [B][COLOR=Red]he was paralyzed in a serious diving accident which permanently confined him to a wheelchair[/COLOR][/B][/QUOTE]
In 1978, he quit psychiatry and came to Washington to serve as a science adviser in the Carter Administration and, later, speechwriter to Vice President Walter Mondale. In 1981, he joined the staff of The New Republic where he was an essayist and editor from 1981 -88. In the mid-eighties he began writing a weekly syndicated column for The Washington Post, which now appears in more than 100 newspapers, and a monthly essay for Time magazine.
In his first full year as a syndicated columnist, he won the Pulitzer Prize (Distinguished Commentary, 1987). His New Republic essays won the highest award in magazine writing, the National Magazine Award for Essays and Criticism (1984). In 1997, the Washingtonian magazine named him among the top 50 most influential journalists in the national press corps.
He has won awards for his writing on everything from the economics of oil (the Champion/Tuck Media Award for Economic Understanding) to religion in civil society (People for the American Way, First Amendment Award). Mr. Krauthammer received the Guardian of Zion Award from Bar-Ilan University in May 2002. His essays have appeared in dozens of anthologies on subjects ranging from nuclear deterrence to gay marriage. He has been writing about medical ethics for The New Republic since 1979 and recently wrote an article for the magazine entitled "What We Will Become: A Secular Inquiry into the Ethics of Research Cloning." He is a member of the President's Council on Bioethics. A collection of his essays and columns, Cutting Edges, was published in 1985 (Random House).
He is a regular weekly panelist on Inside Washington, Washingtonââ¬â¢s highest rated political TV talk show, and a contributing editor to The New Republic and The Weekly Standard. In addition, also serves on the Editorial Board of several journals, including the National Interest and the Public Interest. In his speeches, Charles Krauthammer breathes new life into tired debates, offering clear and compelling arguments that everyone else overlooks and challenging conventional wisdom. An incisive thinker, he is a strong voice offering new perspectives on international affairs, U.S. politics, foreign policy and culture. He is widely known as a conservative, but he is also unorthodox to the core.
He lives in Chevy Chase, Maryland, with his wife, Robyn, an artist, and son Daniel. [/QUOTE]Our beloved hawk went to Canada to escape the draft during the war in Vietnam, but he is not at all shy about urging others to face the dangers he ducked. After all, he could have been sentenced to the wheel chair in a more masculine manner. He could have had his spinal cord severed by a bullet in Vietnam.
2005-08-30 19:39 | User Profile
Edward,
No need to take umbrage. Speaking for myself, I saw your post and understood what you meant about the Achille Lauro. [U]What I didn't know was how Chuck wound up in a wheel chair.[/U] Another chapter of history found that otherwise, would have been sunk from sight. He is indeed, a chickenhawk of the first order and to think, he wants now to advise on Afghanistan when he could have advise ARVN.
I wonder if his son is old enough to serve, like Bill Bennett's?
2005-08-30 20:42 | User Profile
Same here, Ed. I got the Krauthammer/Klinghoffer dig right away. So that makes at least three old farts here, and one Methuselah (when Toner's logged in).
2005-08-30 21:01 | User Profile
Hey, I got it too, but I'm not that old, I just remember things.
Or, maybe it means I am old. :biggrin:
2005-09-01 16:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius] Krauthammer August 26, 2005What is at stake is whether the world, led by the United States, will demand Arab acceptance of that single Jewish state, or whether the United States will continue to push Israel from one concession to another until one day another arch is erected, this time in Jerusalem itself, [u]commemorating the destruction of history's third and last Jewish commonwealth.[/u]
[/QUOTE] What's he worried about? The fourth Commonwealth, the Hamptons, seems to be thriving at the moment. :nerd:
AE