BCT Editorial – 8/22/06

This page was last updated on August 22, 2006.

Bad call; Editorial; Beaver County Times; August 22, 2006.

The gist of this editorial is that Israel is the bad guy in the Middle East and that we should not support our allies. Perhaps the Times believes as Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) that our allies are a “trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought, and the extorted.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Administration is paying the price for alienating many in the Arab world

“Ponder this.

“Casey Stengel had a better grasp of the nuances of diplomacy in the Middle East than President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and their neo-con followers.

“The Hall of Fame manager of the stellar New York Yankees teams from 1949 through 1960 and the miserable New York Mets in the mid-‘60s once observed that the secret of managing a baseball team was to keep the guys who hated you away from the guys who were undecided.”

[RWC] It’s amazing where the Times goes for political insight. For a while it was The Daily Show and The Colbert Report on Comedy Central and now it’s Casey Stengel.

“Presidents prior to Bush understood this approach to managing diplomacy in the Middle East. That’s why they worked to establish the U.S. role in that troubled region as a broker between the Arabs and the Israelis.”

[RWC] Is the editorial using Arab and Muslim as synonyms? I ask that because Hezbollah’s primary supporter is Iran, a Persian (not Arab) country.

“Bush trashed that approach.”

[RWC] How well did that strategy work? Oh, that’s right, results don’t matter. Only intentions. Here are some points to show how successful the “broker” strategy was for us.

· 1979: Muslims take over the U.S. embassy in Tehran and hold the 50+ Americans for 444 days.

· 1983: Hezbollah blows up the U.S. embassy in Beirut killing 17 Americans and 46 others.

· 1983: Hezbollah blows up the Marine barracks in Beirut killing 241 Americans.

· 1986: Libya blows up a nightclub in Berlin, killing two U.S. servicemen and injuring more than 50.

· 1988: Libya blows up Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 (189 Americans).

· 1993: World Trade Center - six dead civilians

· 1993: U.S. peacekeepers in Somalia - 18 dead soldiers

· 1996: Khobar Towers military barracks in Saudi Arabia - 19 dead soldiers

· 1998: On February 23^rd, Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States.

· 1998: U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania - 224 dead African civilians

· 2000: USS Cole - 17 dead sailors

You’ll note all these incidents happened before President Bush took office.

“From the start, his administration has openly sided with Israel and largely ignored or been hostile to other nations and rulers and their concerns.”

[RWC] Hmm, we sided with a long-time ally attacked by enemies of our own. How shocking!

Note the editorial didn’t identify the “other nations and rulers” we’ve “largely ignored or been hostile to.” Why? Because they are Iran, Lebanon, and Syria, and we know Iran and Syria control Lebanon. It’s no coincidence these are the only three countries actively attacking Israel.

I suspect “other nations and rulers” also includes terrorist leaders. Why? Because President Bush set forth a policy in which he declared we would not negotiate with terrorists. You’ll remember Yasser Arafat was a terrorist and led the PLO, yet Bill Clinton treated him like a head of state and invited him multiple times to the White House. President Bush reversed that idiotic policy and refused to speak with Arafat.

“In doing so, this president and his followers needlessly alienated them more than they already were. By shutting off dialogue with these undesirables, he closed off important lines of communication.

“The attack against the terrorists’ base in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America didn’t provoke much reaction, in large part because many Arabs no doubt believed the Taliban had gone too far. However, the handling of Guantanamo Bay prisoners captured in Afghanistan undercut that.”

[RWC] I suspect the reaction also had something to do with, “If I keep my mouth shut, maybe I can avoid Afghanistan’s fate.”

Of course, it could also be that Afghans are not Arabs. Afghans are primarily Persian, and there’s no love lost between Arabs and Persians. That’s likely why most Arab countries weren’t super upset about Israel attacking Hezbollah. As a reminder, Iran funds Hezbollah and Iran’s population is predominantly Persian.

The editorial implies terrorists captured in Afghanistan were somehow mishandled at Club Gitmo but doesn’t provide details. This is just another drive-by accusation. Note the editorial didn’t mention the treatment of Americans at the hands of Muslim terrorists. Apparently panties on a prisoner’s head at Abu Ghraib is worse than a beheading.

“The fence-sitters started edging toward the hardliners when the United States invaded, conquered and occupied Iraq. They moved farther away because of Abu Ghraib and other abuses. Many undecideds the United States should have been wooing came to see the United States as an occupier, not a liberator.”

[RWC] Note the author didn’t identify the alleged “fence-sitters” and “undecideds.” Does anyone care to guess why?

“The final blunder that pushed many Muslims in the hate-America camp was the support of the Bush White House for Israel’s attack against Hezbollah, the terrorist organization that was the de facto government in southern Lebanon, and the resulting death and destruction it brought down on the Lebanese.”

[RWC] Did the Times miss the news stories documenting that Hezbollah attacked Israel first and Israel reacted in self-defense? Was Israel supposed to sit there while Hezbollah came across the border and killed and kidnapped Israeli soldiers?

Did you notice the editorial mentioned the “death and destruction … brought down on the Lebanese,” but not one word about “death and destruction … brought down on the” Israelis? The author apparently is more concerned about the casualties of the attacker than of the victim. We shouldn’t be too surprised, though. Remember, liberals routinely treat criminals as if they are the real victims.

Given the tenor of the editorial, I have to admit I’m surprised it rightly labeled Hezbollah as a terrorist group. Then again, it was probably an error that slipped by the editing process.

“The end result of this administration’s ideologically-driven agenda has been to energize the Arab world behind the very extremists the United States is trying to neutralize.”

[RWC] Yeah, that “terrorist is bad”, “free, peaceful sovereign nation is good” ideology is something to be avoided at all costs.

“Have no doubt. Anti-Americans sentiments run deep in the Arab world. But past administrations saw the wisdom of keeping as many Arab leaders as possible in the undecided category. They also were attempting to create an environment in which moderate Muslims had a chance to spread their message across the Arab world.”

[RWC] As I asked above, how well did that strategy work?

It would have been nice if the editorial had identified the alleged “moderate Muslims” in the Middle East. Heck, I’d be happy if the editorial could identify alleged “moderate Muslims” anywhere in the world “spread[ing] their message.” From what I can tell, if “moderate Muslims” exist, “their message” is to keep their mouths shut except to complain about the rest of us associating terrorism with Islam.

“It was a long, slow process with many setbacks along the way. And if we know nothing else about this president, it is that he has little regard for the nuances and subtleties of life, let along Middle Eastern diplomacy.”

[RWC] While the editorial said, “[i]t was a long, slow process with many setbacks along the way,” it did not cite any successes. I think we know why.

What are the “nuances and subtleties” of terrorist attacks?

“Members of this administration are the diplomatic equivalent of Stengel’s incompetent Mets. Like that expansion team, they haven’t clue as to how to play this game. We can see the results in America’s low standing in the Middle East.”

[RWC] Yes, and the U.S. was held in such high regard in the Middle East prior to President Bush taking office – not.

Does anyone care to guess why the editorial failed to note Jordan just became the first Arab state to station a fully accredited ambassador in Iraq?