Jewish Press Endorses Bush

[DC09]

It was George W. Bush’s lot to have been elected president at a time when two defining developments were at work, fundamentally changing the world landscape. The European Union’s burgeoning determination to fill the international political void created by the collapse of the Soviet Union was one. And the unprecedented challenges presented by an international terror crusade on the move —underscored eight months into Mr. Bush’s presidency by 9/11 — was the other.

Both these developments required — and will continue to require — leadership not rooted in outdated geopolitical thinking; leadership cognizant of the reality that our ostensible friends do not necessarily share our interest in a strong United States and that our enemies do not risk as much as we do from confrontations gone seriously bad.

With this in mind, the choice Americans must make on November 2 should be an easy one. One can prattle about the significance of this or that difference between President Bush and Senator Kerry on the environment, Social Security, jobs, taxes and a whole slew of other domestic issues. But that avenue ineluctably ends up as a clash of partisan talking points about inherently insoluble problems. When it comes, however, to the war on terror — the overarching issue of our time — the choice of Mr. Bush over Mr. Kerry is a clear one from everything available in the public record. And for those with a special interest in Israel, the choice is even clearer.

Although the reality of terrorism was with us well before 9/11, the attacks on that day crystallized for most Americans the awareness that the threat we had been facing for a decade - albeit in a mostly lackadaisical manner — was very different from those posed by more conventional enemies in our nation’s past. No longer could our approach to national security be based upon the defeat, far from our shores, of identifiable enemy states. Sabotage within our borders could no longer be viewed as one-dimensional adjunct criminal acts to be addressed by militarily defeating an offending state and criminally prosecuting the direct perpetrators.

Complicating matters was the unpleasant recognition that, save for Britain, our post-World War II allies were just not interested in facilitating yet another U.S. success, even over a growing Muslim terror threat. After all, went the thinking in European capitals, it was the U.S. that was the direct target, and alienating the Muslim world and its actual and potential markets made little economic sense.

President Bush said in his State of the Union address less than five months after 9/11 that "In a single instant, we realized that this will be a decisive decade in the history of liberty, that we’ve been called to a unique role in human events. Rarely has the world faced a choice more clear or consequential."

When the president spoke, he noted that the Taliban had already been routed from Afghanistan, "Yet tens of thousands of trained terrorists are still at large. These enemies view the entire world as a battlefield, and we must pursue them wherever they are. So long as training camps operate, so long as nations harbor terror, freedom is at risk. And America and our allies must not, and will not, allow it...."

As if anticipating future critics who would not grasp that the lack of traditional threats did not matter, or who would find it politically and economically convenient to shrug off seemingly non-imminent danger, he went on to underscore the new reality, summarizing what came to be labeled the Bush doctrine of preemption: "We’ll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer...."

And, almost presciently, he added, "But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will."

Full Article

[wunarmdscissor]

now theres a surprise.

We can see how europeans are being portrayed in the jewish media by erikl's ultra xenophobic feelings toward europe as a whole.

I mean this all stems from palestine or the lack of it for the want of a better phrase.

The EU unlike america is actually trying to campaign for a palestinian state , the jewish population as a whole resent s for it.

They see bush stalling over it and activley taking the israeli side and think "hey this is the good guy", i dont blame them for it their backing their man aint they , but it doesnt give bush any more credence lol .

[Talon]

True wunarm, very true

[Ann]

now theres a surprise.

We can see how europeans are being portrayed in the jewish media by erikl's ultra xenophobic feelings toward europe as a whole.

I mean this all stems from palestine or the lack of it for the want of a  better phrase.

The EU unlike america is actually trying to campaign  for a palestinian state , the jewish population as a whole resent s for it.

They see bush stalling over it and activley taking the israeli side and think "hey this is the good guy", i dont blame them for it their backing their man aint they , but it doesnt give bush any more credence lol .

319664[/snapback]

I have to say that as a Jew and being from Israel I find this thread really offensive, even from it's title.

You’re saying the “Jewish media” (and exactly what is that, by the way?) are treating the Europeans as a whole, yet you write that all the Jewish population resent giving the Palestinians their own state?

And I’m sorry you feel that the fact that some Jews support Bush “doesn’t give bush any more credence”. So I’m to understand that a candidate that is supported by Jews is to lose his value in your eyes because of that?

[Talon]

I have to say that as a Jew and being from Israel I find this thread really offensive, even from it's title.

You’re saying the “Jewish media” (and exactly what is that, by the way?) are treating the Europeans as a whole, yet you write that all the Jewish population resent giving the Palestinians their own state?

And I’m sorry you feel that the fact that some Jews support Bush “doesn’t give bush any more credence”. So I’m to understand that a candidate that is supported by Jews is to lose his value in your eyes because of that?

You'll find Wunarm didn't name the thread, and didn't write the article, and Erikle is ultra anti-European, and the article does come off as anti-European.

[Ann]

I was replaying to Wunarm's own words, not the article, sorry if it was not completely clear, but I was referring to his own words which I quoted. I don't know Erikle or his views, but I do know what I read in Wunarm's post and so replayed to that.

[Talon]

You’re saying the “Jewish media” (and exactly what is that, by the way?)

The ones Erikle keeps posting I'd guess, which are usually extremely anti-European, and anti-Palastinian independence.

And I’m sorry you feel that the fact that some Jews support Bush “doesn’t give bush any more credence”. So I’m to understand that a candidate that is supported by Jews is to lose his value in your eyes because of that?

Nowhere does Wunarm say anything like your implying. He's saying he fails to see how if a group as a whole seem to support Bush, how does that make him any more credible. And whether you agree with him or not, its true. Whether Bush was supported by the majority of Jews, Muslims, Catholics, or any other religious group would not suddenly mean, forget his policies, he's more credible because some site said so.

yet you write that all the Jewish population resent giving the Palestinians their own state?

If by this your saying you want an Independent Palistine, the good for you, we need more people with that attitude, doesn not mean you should get all worked up about Wun's post on media bias.

Edited October 22, 2004 by Talon S.

[wunarmdscissor]

your taking my post out of context and fail to see where i made offensive comments , its like me taking offensive at the term "scottish media" .

Or being described like we do when we are described as all being left wing labour supporters by the wider british press.

As a majority the scottish public do vote that way an its in no way offensive to use a phrase like that.

What exactly did i say that was even in the slightest anti jewish.

I merley pointed out the current administration leans towards israel, by majority the jewish public would support the isreali cause over the palestinian , it is not offensive to state that there would be a link in voting trends among jews on a wider scale.

just as the scots public vote left wing for direct benefit to us as a people.

Your taking the typical "everyone is out to get us approach". Like a lot of my countrymen do with regards to england (eh talon ;-) ) lol j/k.

BTW i know what your implying by questioning the phrase of "jewish media", i never made it in the first place but kellalor,i suspect, never meant it in the vein you are implying ie: the whole jewish conspiracy in the media b******s.

Oh and i like erikl , we get on very well , but he has rose coloured specks when it comes to these issues lol , check his posts. youll see what me and talon are referring to.

Edited October 22, 2004 by wunarmdscissor

[Talon]

Your taking the typical "everyone is out to get us approach". Like a lot of my countrymen do with regards to england (eh talon ;-) ) lol j/k.

Oh I don't believe the English are out to get us, simply in the modern era thousands of smaller states absorbed into larger ones are regaining independence because small states can now survive in a multi-global world. My issue is with why do the Celts have to be the exception.

[wunarmdscissor]

well u do put forward a good argument my friend.