Muslim and Jewish Women in Nazareth

'We can live in peace'...John Lennon (photo: Dafna Tal)

Mahzor

Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Posts Tagged ‘dick-cheney’

Cheney and the ‘Dirty’ Iraq Timetable Bill

Sunday, April 15th, 2007

I was struck by Cheney’s language in the following quote from a TV interview today:

Vice President Dick Cheney said in an interview broadcast Sunday that Congressional Democrats were irresponsible for using a war spending bill to set a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq. He said he was “willing to bet” that the Democrats would eventually cave in to President Bush’s demands for legislation with no strings attached.

Vice President Dick Cheney on Saturday at a taping for “Face the Nation,” which was broadcast Sunday. The vice president said that Democratic efforts to set a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq were irresponsible.

“I think the Congress will pass clean legislation,” Mr. Cheney said in the interview broadcast on the CBS News program “Face the Nation,” adding, “I do believe that positions that the Democratic leaders have taken, to a large extent now, are irresponsible.”

Which means that legislation containing a timetable must be ‘dirty.’ There’s only one thing that’s dirty around here and it’s not an Iraq timetable–it’s Dick Cheney’s increasingly unconvincing manipulation of the English language for political advantage. It doesn’t fool anyone anymore. Not even the conservatives who used to be with him on the war.

Dick Cheney and Herbert Hoover, One Thing in Common

Saturday, January 27th, 2007

From today’s Maureen Dowd column, Daffy Does Doom (TimesSelect required):

Delusional is far too mild a word to describe Dick Cheney. Delusional doesn’t begin to capture the profound, transcendental one-flew-over daftness of the man.

Has anyone in the history of the United States ever been so singularly wrong and misguided about such phenomenally important events and continued to insist he’s right in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

Yes, Herbert Hoover. But the difference is that Herbert Hoover was a moderate Republican who actually cared about the people whom the Depression dispossessed. He just didn’t have a clue what to do about it. Cheney doesn’t even have that (being moderate or caring about the victims of his policies) in his favor. But he does share with Hoover the fact that he has no clue about how to deal with his ‘Great Depression,’ Iraq.

And I also ‘enjoyed’ this quotation from a Cheney interview with Wolf Blitzer about U.S. ’successes’ in Iraq:

“Bottom line,” Vice told Wolf, “is that we’ve had enormous successes, and we will continue to have enormous successes.”

You bet. If you label 3,000+ American-and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths as “enormous successes.”

Kristol, Cheney and Ghosts of Regime Change Past

Tuesday, July 18th, 2006

I’ve written my own critique of Bill Kristol’s It’s Our War, in which he posits that Israel’s war against Hezbollah should be but the first step in a long march toward regime change in Iran. Madison Guy of Letters from Nowhere pointed me to a telling speech delivered by Dick Cheney to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in 2002, which laid the groundwork for war in Iraq. His comments about “regime change” regarding that country ring ominously true after reading Kristol’s “call to arms” against Iran. Who doesn’t read this and weep a little at how utterly delusional and bereft of sense and reason it was:

Another argument [against going to war with Iraq] holds that opposing Saddam Hussein would cause even greater troubles in that part of the world, and interfere with the larger war against terror. I believe the opposite is true. Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits to the region. When the gravest of threats are eliminated, the freedom-loving peoples of the region will have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting peace. As for the reaction of the Arab “street,” the Middle East expert Professor Fouad Ajami predicts that after liberation, the streets in Basra and Baghdad are “sure to erupt in joy in the same way the throngs in Kabul greeted the Americans.” Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of Jihad. Moderates throughout the region would take heart. And our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced, just as it was following the liberation of Kuwait in 1991.

The nutjob actually believed that war with Iraq would LESSEN the troubles of the region. Then there’s the quotation from Fouad Ajami about Iraqis erupting in joy at their American liberators. That crackpot should hide his head in shame instead of raking in the bucks as a talking head analyst for cable news. How ’bout those “extremists” who’d have to “rethink their strategy of Jihad.” If they did rethink anything it merely reaffirmed and strengthened their determination to kill as many Americans as they could. And where are those Arab moderates taking heart? Probably in a bomb shelter somewhere as the bullets, fired by sectarian militants stirred up by Cheney’s adventurist foreign policy, whizz by their heads.

But of course the laughingest and bitterest laugh of all is reserved for the last sentence in which he touts our enhanced “ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.” Worked just like a charm didn’t it? Israel is sittin’ pretty. Peace is all around us. Oh, that must’ve been in Cheney’s alternate neocon universe.

All this is by way of warning that if anyone buys Kristol’s nostrums for solving the U.S.-Iran impasse, a few years from now someone like me is going to parse his stupidity and chuckle at all the people who had to die because some knucklehead thought he could impose some ridiculous neocon construct on an entire region.

Newt on Lebanon: ‘This is World War III’

And lest anyone say that Kristol is an army of one, Rightweb reports that Newt Gingrich told Meet the Press regarding the Lebanon conflict:

GINGRICH: …This is not the fifth day of the [Lebanon] war. This is the 58th year of the effort by those who want to destroy Israel. As Ahmadinejad, the head of Iran, says, he wants to defeat the Americans and eliminate Israel from the face of the earth. So we should not see this event in isolation. There is an Iran/Iraq/Syria—I mean, an Iran/Syria—was an Iraq before Saddam was replaced—Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas alliance trying to destroy Israel.

…This is absolutely a question of the survival of Israel, but it’s also a question of what is really a world war. Look what you’ve been covering: North Korea firing missiles. We say there’ll be consequences, there are none. The North Koreans fire seven missiles on our Fourth of July; bombs going off in Mumbai, India; a war in Afghanistan with sanctuaries in Pakistan. As I said a minute ago, the, the Iran/Syria/Hamas/Hezbollah alliance. A war in Iraq funded largely from Saudi Arabia and supplied largely from Syria and Iran. The British home secretary saying that there are 20 terrorist groups with 1200 terrorists in Britain. Seven people in Miami videotaped pledging allegiance to al-Qaeda, and 18 people in Canada being picked up with twice the explosives that were used in Oklahoma City, with an explicit threat to bomb the Canadian parliament, and saying they’d like to behead the Canadian prime minister. And finally, in New York City, reports that in three different countries people were plotting to destroy the tunnels of New York.

I mean, we, we are in the early stages of what I would describe as the third world war

RUSSERT: This is World War III?

GINGRICH: I believe if you take all the countries I just listed that you’ve been covering, put them on a map, look at all the different connectivity, you have to say to yourself: this is, in fact, World War III.

And he ain’t talkin’ ’bout Nazis or Commies either. He’s talking about a global war against Islamists and jihadis. ‘World War III!’ Wake up and smell the coffee people. These neocons are certifiable, dangerous lunatics who are ready to take us to full-scale war because of some hysterical notion that Islamists want to–and even more importantly–have the capacity to destroy our way of life. Somebody’s got to put a stop to this. I just hope it’s at the ballot box in November.

Lynne Cheney Can Be Funny–Really She Can!

Tuesday, March 14th, 2006

Here’s how Maureen Dowd (TimesSelect sub. required) describes Lynne Cheney’s feeble attempt at political humor (at the expense of her husband) at the Gridiron Dinner:

Dick & Lynne CheneyCheneys and the humor of cruelty (photo: Uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu)

…Cheney is a practiced speaker, but a bit tone-deaf on humor. At the Gridiron dinner here on Saturday, she said of her husband: “He has a great sense of humor. Just the other day I asked him, ‘Do you know how many terrorists it takes to paint a wall?’ And he answered right back, ‘It depends on how hard you throw them.’ ”

People laughed, but it felt creepy, the kind of humor that makes more terrorists.

Hilarious. And not “a bit tone-deaf,” but fully and completely tone-deaf. Or how about brutal, cruel, and sadistic? The kind of joke that the racist Tom Buchanan would’ve told to Daisy in The Great Gatsby.

In her column she touts Barack Obama for ‘08 and disses Hillary Clinton’s prospects. While I’m no fan of Clinton, I don’t think she can be dismissed so easily. But I have a far better suggestion: Russell Feingold. At least, the guy has guts in introducing a censure motion against Bush for NSA spying. And he’s not playing to the right gallery as Hillary Hawk seems to be doing.

Cheney: “I’m the Guy Who Pulled the Trigger”

Wednesday, February 15th, 2006

Cheney Fox hunting accident interview screenshot
He’s finally done it. The Sphinx has arisen from his slumber to address the multitude clamoring for an explanation of how he shot a close friend last Saturday in a hunting accident. To his credit, in a Fox News interview (video and transcript) Cheney took full responsibility for the shooting (as well he should) and did not hide behind the “blame the victim” rationales proposed by his friends who’ve been blaming Harry Whittington for the accident.

But I still have this nagging question: why did it take Dick FOUR DAYS to rouse himself from his bunker in order to tell the world what happened? And how can George Bush allow his presidency to be riven with discord and fragmented leadership by a gaffe such as this? How can a vice president essentially make up his own rules and have no accountability to the president’s staff? How does Cheney get away with leaving it to Scott McClellan to be his unwilling spokesperson while not providing any pertinent information to McClellan which he can pass on to the press corps? Doesn’t Bush realize this makes him as president look spineless and not in command?

But even in his “candid” mode, Cheney continues to show utter disregard for common sense:

He also said he thought it was the right decision to allow Ms. Armstrong become the only voice in describing what had happened.

“I thought that that was the right call,” he said. “I didn’t have any press people with me. I was there on a private weekend with friends.”

You come within a few inches of killing someone and you make the feeble excuse that you mishandled the incident because you had no press people with you?? As anyone can tell you who covers Cheney, the man has staff (even on a private hunting expedition) up the yin yang bristling with Blackberries, pagers, satellite phones, etc. None of them could’ve called his press people to discuss what to do? What’s more–you leave all communications decisions to your host rather than your professional staff? Pathetic.

We should note that in giving this interview to Fox News Cheney is still trying to spin the story. Just as Ms. Armstrong released the original story to a small obscure hometown newspaper in order to ensure it would be buried, so Cheney has fessed up to the most sycophantic news network when it comes to holding the Bush Administration to account for all its misdeeds. When Fox airs the entire interview at 6 PM today you can be sure Britt Hume will ask none of the tough questions the rest of the press has been asking since Sunday. Everything’s a ’set up’ with these guys.

UPDATE

The broadcast of the full Fox interview reveals some new utter cluelessness on Cheney’s part. This is from the NY Times coverage:

Mr. Cheney said that he delayed making the news public because “this was a complicated story” and that he would do so again. It was more important to contact members of Mr. Whittington’s family, he said, than to get the story out to the public immediately.

For “this was a complicated story” read “we knew we were gonna get killed over this and we had to figure out how to minimize the fallout.” Aren’t you also touched that the vice president so selflessly cared about Mr. Whittington’s family more than his own professional responsibilities. Besides, I’m sure there was no way Cheney and his staff could’ve multi-tasked by simultaneously contacting Whittington’s family AND releasing the news to the major media.

And ol’ Dick just can’t stop himself, in the midst of his press woes, from sticking a finger in the eye of those mangy lib elite reporters who spare no effort to personally embarrass him every chance they get:

He suggested that the outcry about his failure to release the news, and then just to a local newspaper, reflected the unhappiness of the White House press corps that they were left out of the first reports.

“They didn’t like the idea that we called The Corpus Christi Caller-Times instead of The New York Times,” Mr. Cheney said. “But it strikes me that The Corpus Christi Caller-Times is just as valid a news outlet as The New York Times is, especially for covering a major story in south Texas.”

Gee, I guess the Corpus Christi Caller-Times is the most logical media outlet to use when the vice president of the United States has shot someone. After all, that story can’t be of much interest to anyone outside Corpus Christi, now could it?

In my last post about the accident, I wondered why Cheney’s party was still hunting in the dying light of a winter day when visibility could not help but be reduced. Cheney confirms my point in the Fox interview when he says:

Asked to explain how the accident occurred, the vice president said Mr. Whittington, dressed in orange hunting gear and wearing protective glasses, had been standing in a slight gully with the setting sun directly behind him. “That affected the vision, too, I’m sure,” Mr. Cheney said.

The interview also raises new questions about the account of the incident relayed by Ms. Armstrong, the host who adamantly insisted that no alcohol had been served to the party. In fact, Cheney reveals that he had had a beer during lunch a few hours before the incident. One wonders what she thinks will be gained by being less than candid about this particular part of the story; especially considering it is such a potentially huge news event. Attempting to midlead the press only serves to exacerbate the damage. When are those people ever going to learn that? One wonders if members of the hunting party have fibbed about this point what else may they have fibbed about or simply not revealed?

Cheney Shooting and Fateful 24-Hour Delay

Tuesday, February 14th, 2006

I’m glad to hear that according to the NY Times the press is in an uproar over the 24-hour delay in announcing that Buckshot Dick had plugged one of his hunting companions. The shooting happened on Saturday and apparently it wasn’t even until Sunday morning that Bucky got around to thinking about releasing the information to the press:

In an interview, Ms. Armstrong said that it did not occur to anyone in the hunting party to make news of the shooting public immediately, but that no one, including Mr. Cheney, had called for holding it back. She said Mr. Cheney participated in discussions on Sunday morning about disclosing the incident, agreeing that it should be made public but deferring to the Armstrong family on how to do so.

So you’re the VP. You just shot somebody. Yet you give no thought till 24 hours later that the world might want to know what you’d done?? Come on! And the following is a lu-lu too:

Cheney shooting--Corpus Christi newspaper screenshotThe shot heard round the world, er, at least Corpus Christi

On Sunday morning, Ms. Armstrong tipped off her local newspaper, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, to the story. It was later picked up by national wire services and confirmed by Mr. Cheney’s office.

So let’s say you want to be able to say you released a story to the press while still burying it so it’ll get little or no coverage–at least for another couple of hours, thereby buying you additional time in the race to stifle a very embarrassing story. Of course you release it to the small local paper that no one pays attention to (except Corpus Christi residents).

We all knew that these guys managed the news and bought it when they couldn’t manage it enough. Here’s yet another example.

The Times also reports that at a meeting today with Cheney, Pal Georgy warned him the press would join the meeting at its end. Guess who scurried out the back door like a fraidy-cat? That’s right, ‘ol Buckshot.

Cheney Aims at Quail But Takes Out Hunting Companion

Monday, February 13th, 2006
Cheney holding NRA rifleCheney’s got his gun (photo: Informationblast.com)

This has got to be a first: has any sitting vice-president ever shot anyone? H. Ross points out below that Aaron Burr was vice-president when he challenged Alexander Hamilton to a duel and killed him all because the latter led forces which successfully derailed his effort to become president. So Dick doesn’t get a historic first on this one (shucks). But he’s only the second to do so (Burr’s political career was NOT enhanced by his little escapade).

It was an accident of course. But still. Does anyone think wielding a loaded shotgun is advisable for a guy who’s had four or five heart attacks? What if he has another one right there as he’s wheeling and firing? Then he could put a few pellets right between the eyes instead of merely injuring a companion.

I’m astonished by this passage from the NY Times’ coverage of the incident:

White House officials…did not make public the shooting incident for nearly 24 hours…

Asked why the vice president’s office had made no announcement about the accident, [Cheney spokeswoman] Ms. McBride said, “We deferred to the Armstrongs [owners of the hunting ground] regarding what had taken place at their ranch.”

Oh, really. Dick plugs a guy and the White House’s first inclination is to bow to the wishes of their host? Gimme a break. They’re serving up steaming hot bullshit today. And isn’t it typical of the Bush White House. Bad news? Stifle it. Imagine if the poor guy’d been killed and they’d delayed such news. They’d be in deep doo-doo as they deserve to be for this as well.

Charles Sumner attacked by Preston BrooksCharles Sumner attacked by Preston Brooks on floor of Senate in 1856

It does make you wonder if you could carry that shotgun on the floor of Congress what Dick might’ve done to Patrick Leahy besides cursing him with a “fuck you?” Perhaps plugging him with a little buckshot would make that little pansy-ass lib from Vermont think twice before crossing swords with Dick, huh? It takes me back to that famous 1856 incident in which New England abolitionist, Sen. Charles Sumner was cane-whipped to within an inch of his life by a southern House member. It does seem like a more manly way to resolve political disputes instead of those pusillanimous speeches all those Dems like to give to rally the country to their perfidious point of view. A little pistol whipping or grapeshot in the ass should teach them who’s boss right quick.

It’s gotten me thinking about Dick’s ‘dance card’ for future hunting trips. I’m guessing it’ll be a little less desirable to traipse through those South Texas hunting grounds with Buckshot Dick even if you could score a multi-billion Halliburton-type deal for your company. Is it worth such a lucrative contract when you might give your life to get it? I think Dick’s office may start paying people to be Dick’s buddy. But body armor should definitely be included. They can use some of those vests that were destined for our boys on the front line in Iraq.

We wish poor Harry Whittington a speedy recovery. Doesn’t it make you wish ever so slightly that Dick’d put a little buckshot into Antonin Scalia the last time those two geezers were out shooting little birdies in Louisiana? By the way, Mr. Whittington might want to think twice before accompanying Dick on another one of those hunting expeditions. Might be bad for his health.

Cheney Rattles Sabers on Imus in the Morning

Friday, January 21st, 2005

If I were Condi Rice right about now, I’d start wondering who was making U.S. foreign policy–her or Dick Cheney. And I’d also wonder where that policy was being made–at the State Department or in the studios of obscure cable TV drivetime shock jocks like Don Imus. Both Cheney’s appearance itself and his comments were startlingly candid:

Dick ‘pokes a stick’ at the Iranians on Imus in the Morning (credit: MSNBC.com)

Don Imus asked [Cheney in reference to getting Iran to dismantle its nuclear program], “Why don’t we make Israel do it?” It was a reference to a military option much discussed in Washington but rarely talked about in public by top officials.

“Well, one of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked,” Mr. Cheney said. “If, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had a significant nuclear capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards.”

from Cheney Says Israel Might ‘Act First’ on Iran

So there you have it. The vice president of the United States announced that our nation will give a wink and a nod when Israel’s air force strikes Iranian nuclear production facilities. In addition, he told the world through that towering wise man of international relations, Don Imus, that we wouldn’t mind one bit the disastrous consequences that such a pre-emptive strike would have on Mideast relations. Really, it takes one’s breath away.

And those of you who get angry whenever someone says Israel is nothing more than a U.S. surrogate (or lackey depending on how you see it); and that the U.S. farms out to Israel the dirty little tasks that it feels it can’t be seen doing in the Mideast, well I’ve got news for you. At least in this instance, that description would be dead on accurate. And how will the Arab world react to this Israel-America wink-wink nod-nod dog and pony show??

Back in the old days, when U.S. presidents really cared at least in some small degree what the world community thought of their actions, such a pronouncement would’ve been met with paroxysms of disbelief. Well, actually such a statement might have been contemplated in some policymaker’s inner mind, but it would never have seen the light of day. Today, it provokes a few small ripples.

I’ve never much thought that there was any downside to the downfall of Communism and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. But now I understand that there clearly was: back in the day when Nixon and Kissinger faced off against the Soviets over Vietnam or against the Soviets during the Six Day War, there was always a balance of terror between the two powers which prevented overly bellicose behavior from either side. Now, that fail safe mechanism is gone and America can essentially do whatever it wishes on the world stage. If I were the French or Germans I’d be going full speed ahead with plans to develop a full range of military and diplomatic options for the European nations. Because if they don’t then Bush and other potential future bellicose presidents will think nothing of taking the world to the brink of annihilation as this one has done.

And lest any of my readers say: “Ah well, Cheney was just rattling his saber to frighten the Iranians into cooperating with the Europeans in the negotiations to end their nuclear program.” Would that it were so. This is precisely the same type of statement that emanated from the Bush folks in the months leading up the Iraq War. And with the radical bellicosity of Bush’s Inaugural Address, we must no mistake about it: Bush intends to topple the Ayatollahs whatever it takes. Well, let me amend that slightly. He intends to force them to end their nuclear program. And if they will not agree to do so, THEN he intends to topple them. The only question is: “Will the Iranians blink?” Are they prepared to go to war with the United States over retaining the nuclear option?

I find it appalling that I should even be asking such a question. Think of the repercussions a war with Iran will have in the Middle East. Think of the repercussion within the entire Arab/Muslim world. We thought they hated us now? You ain’t seen nothin’ yet. And this will set back a potential resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by 50 years. The thing that absolutely flabbergasts me about all of this is that Bush doesn’t care. His inaugural speech seems to point to the U.S. being in a state of perpetual war with a series of states including, but not necessarily limited to Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Myanmar and Zimbabwe (according to Condi’s testimony at her confirmation hearing)..

And what are the Iranians to make of the Bush Administration taking advantage of a shock jock cable TV show to make pronouncements that could potentially seal the fate of thousands of their fellow countrymen and women should there be war soon? Is it a sign of Cheney’s utter contempt for them? To me it’s a little akin to asking a girl out for a date while sitting on the can. What kind of respect do you really have for her? And yeah, it feels like Cheney just wants to shit all over them.