I have finally understood what I would like to do with the rest of my life. It is so simple – like a 1000 watt bulb going off in your head!
And it happened reading this editorial in NYT. Wow, man! You get, like, a blog of your own, but a) you get paid a good buck and b) lotsa folks are going to read it. And all the other conveniences of the blog: anonymity (it is NYT that has written it, after all, not a specific bloke – go and clean the clock of all the flunkies there – quite a sweaty undertaking), ability to write any bullshit that comes to mind and stuff…
Just look at it:
Now, because of two culprits and one enabler — Hamas, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel and President Bush — that hill is becoming a mountain.
I mean, isn’t it cool: that poor Ehud, barely a week in his job and already a “culprit”. Of course, he cannot bash the author’s teeth in for the reason stated above, but I bet he wanna to…
Or that other thing:
Mr. Olmert wants to go ahead with Ariel Sharon’s misbegotten plan to unilaterally redraw the borders of what could eventually be Palestine.
Not only is the author anonymous, but the old fatso is in no shape to visit NYT offices and sit down for a while on the author’s puny bones. Too bad. And of course the fact that “Mr. Olmert” declares every day that he wants to negotiate first and only in case of failure to make some unilateral steps does not count…
The key word here is unilaterally, because the Israelis are prepared to do this without any input from the Palestinians.
But we do get lots of input, dear Anonymous: more than 600 Qassams since the disengagement. How is that for a model of the future neighborhood relations?
But this is not the pearl yet. Here comes the pearl:
To a significant degree, the Palestinians put themselves in this spot by electing Hamas to run their government, and the Bush administration is right to refuse to legitimize a government dedicated to the destruction of Israel. But Mr. Bush should not punish the Palestinian people by endorsing any unilateral proposal — doing that would punish them for exercising their democratic right to vote.
I wonder to what degree the author is full of that brown substance. The answer is, most probably: to a significant degree. For all these years of Likud governments we heard the calls for Israel to be punished for electing them. Mind you, not one of these governments called for elimination of Palestinians or even something close to that. And now, when the openly anti-Semitic gang of fundies is democratically elected: please don’t punish the poor folks.
Yeah. Groovy. I still want to write these idiotorials for NYT, but first: give me that bloke to clean his clock for him. Please?
The Gray Lady is my hometown rag; I grew up reading it in the a.m. and the (Herald) Tribune in the p.m.
The Trib is long gone, and I stopped reading the Times some years ago. This editorial is a reminder that I made the right decision.
Would that everyone else would just stop reading that rag…
Meryl, if you want to clean the editorial writer’s clock, you have to get in line.
chsw
its is pretty good that they are staying the course
Bush, Blair Offer No Timetable for Removal of Coalition Forces From Iraq
a great rebuttal.
how sad that it needs to be done.
how sad that “our” media is our enemy rather than an impartial observer.
how sad.
great posting.
thanx
Dry Bones
Israel’s Political Comic Strip Since 1973
“doing that would punish them for exercising their democratic right to vote”…so, if Hitler were democratically elected according to the laws of the Weimar Republic, then this clown must think that Britain and France had no right to employ economic sanctions against Germany, much less to attempt to overthrow the regime.
Of course, “democratic election” in both cases involved large quantitites of violence and intimidation.
Thankfully the last time I purchased The New York Times was back in February 2004. Never Again!
After reading the drivel of The New York TImes I am proud to declare that thankfully I am not a liberal.
Unfortunately, Olmert’s withdrawal plan is designed to reward the terrorists for their actions. Just because a surrender is unilateral does not mean that it is right. At first I thought that the person that you quoted was seeing straight. However, he ends by saying that Olmert should have gotten the murderers’ approval before surrendering
It is interesting that he says (part of) the right thing for all the wrong reasons.
Sabb Hillel
It is amazing how a democratic vote to elect a government intent on destroying its neighbour and killing its citizens is OK with so many.
Must be something with that crowd that they can also excuse the assassination of a democratically elected leader, in this case Tony Blair.