Only on Fox: "Will this [Middle East] crisis bring back the 'Axis of Weasels?' "
SUMMARY: During a discussion of the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, Fox News host Page Hopkins revived the term "Axis of Weasels," used by conservatives to describe countries such as France, Germany, and Russia, which did not support the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Hopkins stated that, although "[w]e thought they were gone ... the so-called 'Axis of Weasels' appears to be back."
On the July 30 edition of Fox News' Fox News Live Weekend, guest host Page Hopkins revived the term "Axis of Weasels," previously used by conservatives to describe countries such as France, Germany, and Russia, which did not support the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. During a discussion of the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, Hopkins stated that, although "[w]e thought they were gone ... the so-called 'Axis of Weasels' appears to be back." She suggested that, though the United States and "our allies" are "standing strong alongside Israel," other nations -- the purported "Axis" -- "see this conflict in ... a different way."
Hopkins then discussed the conflict with Richard Burt, who served as U.S. ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany from 1985 to 1989, and was assistant secretary of state for European and Canadian affairs from 1983 to 1985. Hopkins asked Burt if there had been "a permanent change in our diplomatic landscape, in terms of who we can count on and who we can't," given that the United States' "European allies seem to be splitting along some of the same lines as they did in the Iraq conflict." Burt answered: "No," and did not use Hopkins's term "Axis of Weasels" to refer to nations that "see" the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in "a different way" than the United States does.
Throughout the segment, an onscreen graphic read: "Will this Crisis Bring Back the 'Axis of Weasels?' "
The term "Axis of Weasels" (or "Axis of Weasel") derives from President Bush's characterization -- beginning in his 2002 State of the Union address -- of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as an "Axis of Evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world." After apparently originating among the right-wing weblogs, "Axis of Weasel[s]" became increasingly popular in the right-wing media. The announcer on Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson used the term on the January 23, 2003, edition of the show, while the cover of the New York Post featured it prominently in a January 24, 2003, headline. A Media Matters for America review* of the Nexis database revealed references to the Post headline on MSNBC (Buchanan and Press, 1/24/03), CNBC (The News with Brian Williams, 1/24/03), CNN (CNN Diplomatic License, 1/25/03), in The New York Times (Maureen Dowd column, 1/26/03), on Fox News (Fox News Sunday, 1/26/03), and at Slate (Chris Suellentrop, 1/30/03) within a week of the headline's original publication.
*Nexis search: ("axis of weasel" or "axis of weasels") w/20 new york post and date(geq (1/24/03) and leq (1/30/03))
From the July 30 edition of Fox News' Fox News Live Weekend:
HOPKINS: America is standing firm, saying Israel has every right to defend itself against Hezbollah terrorists. However, not everyone in Europe appears to agree. In fact, our allies, who are standing strong alongside Israel, are the same ones who stood by the U.S. in the buildup to the war in Iraq. We thought they were gone, but the so-called "Axis of Weasels" appears to be back. Why do they see this conflict in such a different way? Ambassador Richard Burt was America's ambassador to Germany. He was also assistant secretary of state for European affairs. Thanks for joining us, Ambassador Burt.
BURT: Thank you.
HOPKINS: Our European allies seem to be splitting along some of the same lines as they did in the Iraq conflict. Does -- does this tell us that there is a permanent change in our diplomatic landscape, in terms of who we can count on and who we can't?
BURT: No. I don't think it means -- means that there is a permanent change at work. I think what it does represent, though, is an important philosophical difference with many of the Europeans and the United States, at what the root causes of the problem are.
From the January 23, 2003 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:
ANNOUNCER: The U.S. calls France and Germany isolated. Paris and Berlin say they're not alone on their Iraqi peace mission.
Axis of Weasels: France and Germany folding is today's The Big Story with John Gibson.
[...]
GIBSON: Talk about a weak Euro. Are France and Germany hell-bent on diffusing war, or do they have other agendas? A French and a German give us the answers.
where's the duct tape?
It is time for all sensible Americans to come to the defense of sanity. Praise the Lord, pass the duct tape and close their pie holes.
I could find a 101 uses for Duct tape in a night with her. She's stupid, Kooky, but looks like Cameron Diaz. You gotta love Fox for giving Hooters chicks a shot being "Newspeople"
I think she looks like the moon from Le Voyage dans la lune.
...BushCo has made enough enemies. Why make more? Fox can wave its cyberflag, but it doesn't serve America, decency, and logic.
The Middle East is a quagmire and a disaster. If BushCo doesn't have the sense to withdraw, I hope that France and Germany do have the sense to not enter.
As good a time and place as any, to note...
That all this war-mongering on the part of Fox et al (I guess it isn't enough to draw $8 billion dollars a month from the U.S. Treasury in the name of Iraq, they want to expand that sum to 11 or 12 billion per month, by expanding the death and destruction to include Iran and Syria)...
My point is not that this is simply war-mongering for profit and glory, but has anybody as yet noticed how much a flop this "media" campaign is turning out to be?
I mean, at first we had Newt firing the ridiculous shot-heard-round-the-world, about "World War III"; but before Karl and GWB could even get started on his planned "a day which will live in infamy" speech to the Nation, the bad news came rolling in quick:
"The American People are not only not buying the 'WWW III' rhetoric, they're laughing at it and ridiculing it!"
So 'WWW III' was downgraded to "turmoil" and "crisis" by Fox et al...
But have you noticed, how little effect even the "turmoil" and "crisis" is having on the Political Opinions of the American People?
And so I guess calling Europeans "weasels" for not jumping into the fray, is either meant to stir the American People against Europeans...
Or maybe it's meant to stir the American People for more war in the Middle East (more than $8 billion dollars per month anyway)...
Or maybe it's the American People themselves being called "weasels", for not responding to the war-mongering; for failing to get behind "WWW III"...
I don't know; two things I do know though:
1. Fox et al, and they're ability to manipulate Public Opinion, is sinking faster than bill o'reilly's ratings and reputation (perhaps the two are related).
2. $8 billion dollars per month is more than enough; way more than enough; the death and destruction that is Iraq, is way more than enough.
Seems to me that the "weasels" were right.
Most conservatives still find it hard to admit that movie stars and France were right and they were terribly, terribly wrong.
Most American conservatives were the driving force behind one of the worst foreign policy blunders in history.
It is a good thing they evolved to not have consciences or else there would be an epidemic of insomnia in much of our country.
I'm still waiting for Sean Hannity to apologize to Sean Penn. Still waiting...
In stunned astonishment. Those of us on the left were right about Iraq. Correct right down the line. Every prediction we made was found in the fullness of time to be accurate. This includes the reasonable countries like France and Germany. These rightwing brain dead talking point zombies were WRONG. Incredibly, totally wrong, covering the entire spectrum of wrong to the point of defining not having a single dim conception of what they were talking about. Yet the zombie crew is still denigrating those who were RIGHT. It redefines hubris to the point of dementia. It is an astonishing example of reality denial. Its like they are saying. Ok we were so wrong its clearly time to take away our toy microphones and you have to be complete morons to take another thing we say seriously but hey those guys, the ones who PROVED they understood the dynamics far better than we ever could after years of studying at Harvard, are the real dopes. The cognitive dissonance must have their brain cells begging for the sweet release of a coma.
Your assessment of the wisdom of France, Germany and Russia to sit out the conflict in Iraq is hardly because they are smarter than we are. The fact is they were all up to their eyeballs in deals with Baghdad, oil, money, arms, etc. That's the reason.
Now, admittedly, the Iraq situation is a mess and hardly turned out the way we hoped, poor planning and a much tougher resistence is the reason. Is Bush at fault? Of course he is. If it makes you feel good that you say you were right, fine. I don't take comfort in any situation where America makes mistakes, no matter who is in charge.
I think your explanation of why they did not support the action is too simplistic many factors went into it. Whatever you believe their "hidden" reason for not supporting the action against Iraq, it is undeniable that their position of not invading was the right one. The problems we encountered in Iraq were not a suprise. I don't think it is taking comfort in our failures to point out the truth of the situation and the hypocracy of denagrating these countries for acting in their best interest. It doesn't help anyone particularly the US to stick our heads in the sand and not acknowledge and learn from our mistakes.
There is no hypocrisy, and where is the denegrating of these countries? It's the truth, that's the reason they did not support the Iraq invasion. They were sewn at the hip with Saddam, so to act like they acted out of some loftier, more honorable position is ridiculous. They had their reasons, of course, however unseemly they were.
Of course, we have made mistakes and should learn from them. I am not saying otherwise. I was simply commenting on France and the other country's "motives".
France had the best human intelligence IN Iraq and they were telling us there were no WMD programs there
[link to www.sundayherald.com]
You can PRETEND you have the mind reading powers necessary to assign a motive but you dont. As for the denigration of these countries I think calling them an axis of weasels is pretty much textbook denigration.
I think no rational person can dispute the fact that they have a much deeper understanding of the issue then this administration has proved they have time and again. Yes, there was some "unseemly" reasons for their support but it was just A reason not THE reason. Any rational reading of Iraq and the middle east would have resulted in their position not to support this invasion...unfortuanetly rational reasoning did not enter this administrations agenda on the middle east. I was watching the confirmation hearing of Bolton and he showed a marked lack of understanding of the region and the ROOT causes. When questioned about his statement that the ROOT cause was TERRORISM he seemed unable to understand how foolish a statement that was. He also seemed unable to articulate a historical understanding of the region. It was suprising and dismaying to listen to this from our representative.
Are exceedingly complicated. Filled with grey areas. The neo conservative agenda has this wierd blind spot inherent to a segment of the conservative mindset that simply cannot see nuance. Either it fits into this one good that one bad or it doesnt exist. Without any possibility of understanding the situation the possibility of finding a reasonable solution is about the same as hitting a bullseye on a dartboard blindfolded after walking into a room where you dont even know where the darboard IS.
There was a time when we too were "sewn to the hip" to Saddam. We supplied him with weapons and intelligence because we were afraid of the Ayatollah and saw his secular dictatorship as a useful counterweight. We sold him precursors for chemical and biological weapons (including live anthrax), then turned a blind eye when he gassed the Kurds and tried to blame it on Iran; when George W. invaded Iraq, we then cited this attack as evidence that Saddam was evil.
What changed? When Saddam invaded Kuwait, he threatened our energy interests, and suddenly became bad guy number one. Even then, we didn't invade Baghdad, because Bush senior was afraid that we would be bogged down in a quagmire of sectarian violence (sound familiar?)
Indeed, the countries you cite were also supplying Saddam with arms; but please don't pretend that the US wasn't playing dirty as well.
Of course, we have made mistakes and should learn from them. I am not saying otherwise. I was simply commenting on France and the other country's "motives". - tommy
----------------------------
most conservative morons still assert that there were WMDs despite the whole world telling them NO from the beginning. even colin powell had to quit this ignorant administration after it stole his good name and made him lie to the world.
---"It's the truth, that's the reason they did not support the Iraq invasion."---
Now that you've established the truth threshold, Tommy, the reason we invaded Iraq was for OIL. That's the truth.
"The fact is they were all up to their eyeballs in deals with Baghdad, oil, money, arms, etc. That's the reason." --Tommy
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes. Imagine that! Of course we are in this thing for purely humanitarian reasons. Nevermind that WE are now up to our eyeballs in deals with Baghdad, oil, money, arms, etc.
Of course, the US is always the instigator, the bad guys, the country that only looks out for it's own self interest and stirs up trouble indiscriminately, just to bang our collective chests and declare us the king of the world.
Thanks for clarifying.
We all know that the US is completely altruistic in EVERY action we EVER take. Like the humanitarian reasons we overthrew democratic regimes in Iran, Guatemala, Brazil, the Domincan Republic and Chile and replaced them with military dictatorships. Wait, I had an epiphany, maybe we sometimes do the right thing and sometimes do the selfish thing. Hey is it possible for you to EVER see things in temrs other than a false dichotomy?
Spreading democracy????
I never said any such thing. Just pointing out an irony that should have been obvious to you when you made your initial remarks. That didn't stop your childish attempt to baselessly paint my comment as irrational.
Of course, the US is not always the instigator, however we are often just as guilty in the end of what we accuse others of doing. It just strikes me as ironic.
The issues are with the Bush Administration and their policies. Yes, they do represent the U.S. and that's what pisses most of us here off.
Bolton said this was his purpose at the UN is to look out for American Interests. He didn't say that was his primary purpose and then went on to list other puropses; so I assume that's his ownly purpose. Of course I want our interests protected but I would like a representative that believes in the UN's purpose, I think the top US diplomatic representative to the UN should at least make a pretense to believe in the validity of the UN's mission. I don't believe that Bolton or GW and a lot of conservatives do. It's one thing to say that the UN is rifed with graf but I just believe they think the goals of the UN and others in the international community are unimportant. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
The UN
"The United Nations is central to global efforts to solve problems that challenge humanity. Cooperating in this effort are more than 30 affiliated organizations, known together as the UN system. Day in and day out, the UN and its family of organizations work to promote respect for human rights, protect the environment, fight disease and reduce poverty. UN agencies define the standards for safe and efficient air travel and help improve telecommunications and enhance consumer protection. The United Nations leads the international campaigns against drug trafficking and terrorism. Throughout the world, the UN and its agencies assist refugees, set up programmes to clear landmines, help expand food production and lead the fight against AIDS."
[link to www.un.org]
Tommy, can you admit to just one instance where the US has not done the "morally" right thing? That might help you understand that it's possible for someone to know that the US doesn't always do the right thing and still support it.
Just one, Tommy.
It's like how Bush views the rule of law - if he does it, it's legal. To the "America is perfect" crowd, if the U.S. does it, it's moral. End of story. If you think otherwise, why, you must hate America or be a part of the "blame America first" crowd. Tsk tsk.
Abu Ghraib is a horrible stain on our effort in Iraq and an instance where those responsible hardly acted in a moral way.
Attacking the military again. Don't you think we train our soldiers against those kinds of shenanigans? What kind of military do you think we have?
Of course, the US is always the instigator, the bad guys, the country that only looks out for it's own self interest and stirs up trouble indiscriminately, just to bang our collective chests and declare us the king of the world. Thanks for clarifying. - tommy
-----------------------------
What do you mean we white man? Cons wanted this war for years before 911 and now you got it. After calling those who tried to stop you from making America the most hated nation on earth everything from weasels to cheese eating surrender monkeys, you went ahead and sunk us in yet another Vietnam.
The "Blame America First", "Freedom Fries" and other stupid cliches of the moron Con movement don't fly anymore. Those days are over pal.
iraq is a disaster because of the resistance we have encountered. but that was predicted by us skeptics. it was only unexpected by you shinola experts. could better planning have helped? certainly, but things would never have turned out like the neocons predicted. as for people feeling better about being right, why shouldn't we say it each and every time you guys who were totally wrong start spouting off? if you go to a lawyer who gives you bad advice, why would you ever listen to him again.
So it may have been serendipity rather than wisdom, but the fact remains they were right and we were wrong.
so all the people who made those well thought out lengthy reasons why iraq would be a disaster "just got lucky". you and tommy deserve each other.
The cognitive dissonance must have their brain cells begging for the sweet release of a coma. - solon
--------------------
ROFLMAO
Blaming America first is not hating America, that is where you misconstrued what I wrote. Hating America is being glad or cheering our failures. Blaming America is quite different and many do that with regularity, although it's not nearly as reprehensible.
Are we clear?
Didn't misconstrue anything. You need to be more clear if you meant something else. My conclusions were reasonable. Your explanation does not match what you wrote.
Of course, the US is always the instigator, the bad guys, the country that only looks out for it's own self interest and stirs up trouble indiscriminately, just to bang our collective chests and declare us the king of the world.
Thanks for clarifying.
******************************
I certainly did construe that it was blaming America, there is nothing about which I wrote where I indicated that principled disagreement with US policy is hating America. Maybe you better read more carefully before you accuse me of saying something I did not. Normally you are more than reasonable.
You say I believe that "Of course, the US is always the instigator, the bad guys, the country that only looks out for it's own self interest and stirs up trouble indiscriminately, just to bang our collective chests and declare us the king of the world."
My principled belief notwithstanding, I really love America. How could anyone think otherwise?
You are right. Where would I ever get the impression you were saying anything different? So unreasonable of me.
I stand by what I wrote and what I meant. You want to act all thin skinned and offended by it, for whatever reason, that is up to you.
Just to be clear, if I intimated that you are of the hate America crowd, that was not my intention. Whether you are in the blame America crowd is for you to decide.
I guess it was all moot then.
Leads you to believe I am cheering the disaster that IS Iraq? I am soulsick at the catastrophe. It IS relevant that the set of people being denigrated by this rightwing screech monkey is the set of people who predicted it WOULD be a catastrophe. That doesnt make me glad it turned out that way. You are conflating BEING right in what we predicted with WISHING it would turn out that way. The fact we were not willing to deny the basic reality of the situation in no way means we are happy Bush DID deny the now obvious reality of the situation. BUSH is at fault for the catastrophe, not us because we pointed out that it was destined to turn out that way.
We just have silly ideas like always blaming America first...But we aren't America haters. I am not sure who would qualify or what the real difference is to most conservatives.
These mythical America hater bogeymen are the ones cheering on the sidelines as we all ride merrily along in the hand-basket.
Ok, all you Fox News fans, here's the latest batch of... Objects of Hate, Blame & Scapegoating! Movin' up the charts with a bullet this week, close on the heels of former chart-topper The New York Times, is an oldie-but-goodie, The Axis of Weasels.
Step 1:
Ridicule the opposition as irrational. It has the bonus effect of making your own mindless supporters feel superior.
Step 2:
Avoid making any real rational arguments. Keep it ad hominem is our motto.
Repeat Step 1
Then weasels must be very smart animals. After all they knew better than to follow us down the rathole into Iraq, didn't they?
And weren't the ones in the media calling the countries that wouldn't follow us into the quagmire also wrong at every level on their estimates about Iraq?
Just how f***ing stupid do they think we are anyway? No one can be that stupid.
...yeah they can.
Okay, one has to wonder...
Why is Israel going berserk all of a sudden? Why are they using tactics which any idiot can see will only inflame the Middle East? Military experts apparently agree that carpet bombing is the worst possible way to fight mobile guerilla forces; we learned that forty years ago. They bomb an apartment building because terrorists fired a missile from close by thirty minutes before...do they think the terrorists are going to sit there in the shade and smoke a cigarette, waiting for return fire? Please!
So, why this? Why now? Could it be to get the media's attention off of the crapfest Bush has created in Iraq? Is this the price Israel pays for Washington's sycophantic support?
Hmmmmm....is a puzzlement.
What happened to Rice's 48 hour "suspension of action"? Did it even last 48 minutes? It was over before the F-Word Network could turn her little trip into some type of moron con foreign policy achievement.
The conspiracy? Israel, apparently our 51st state, sees its last chance to entangle us in WWIII and IV before the congressional elections totally dilute the waning power of the Bush regime.
...is: will the crisis bring back the axis of stupid?
You know, Bush-Neocons-Rapturites-Rednecks.
The world needs to know.
France, Germany and Russia’s refusal to support Uncle Sam’s every move is a sort of “intervention”, one without bullets and bombs, which is why it’s so confusing to Republicans. They think interventions mean killing. No, GOPers. Just the ones you support.
France et al are attempting a 12-step-type intervention where everyone "shares". Tells Uncle Sam how his self-destructive (and outwardly destructive) tendencies make them feel. No accusations or finger pointing. Just a little tough love. That's what friends do. They tell you when you're effing things up. And Uncle Sam is effing up big time.
Fox News. What else is there to say? They are a classic example of an “enabler”, a key component of Uncle Sam’s destructive codependence. Fox News isn’t Uncle Sam’s friend. Friends don’t stand by and watch you flush your life away, and they don’t criticize others who try to help.
"France, Germany and Russia’s refusal to support Uncle Sam’s every move is a sort of “intervention”"... fantagor
=====
No "interventions" are done by FRIENDS. While I don't blame France, Germany and Russia for refusing to SUPPORT every US policy, lets NOT go so far as to BELIEVE they're doing it out of some sort of "friendship".
Russia in particular is clawing their way back to becoming a Super Power once again, and I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that they will OPPOSE the US on most foreign policy issues the way the Soviet Union once did. It won't be as COLD of a war as it once was, but a warm sweater will probably be necessary ;-)
Howdy jeter. I agree with you about Russia's rise. I have been having this discussion with a bunch of people every time they bring up the WWIII stuff. I don't think our immediate concern is WWIII. I think while we are spinning in circles Russia is moving straight up. I think we are going to wake up one morning and find we have fallen from our perch and Russia has positioned themselves comfortably on it. We need to get people elected who understand foreign policy and how it effects the US's position and security fast to try and undo the damage already done and stop the escalation.
I happen to read an article about THIS very subject. It's titled *The Bear is out of Hibernation* I think you'll find it pretty interesting.
Here's the link:
[link to www.comlinks.com]
I AGREE with you that we need a whole new Cast Of Characters when it comes to conducting US foreign policy. I don't believe the CURRENT crop has given much thought to Russia or Putin. They MAY be in for a rude awakening!! :-O
Gotta get back to work...hope to catch ya later :-)
Thanks for the link. Just to bring it around to what we are discussing in this thread...while the US ,at the hands of this administration, are busy making enemies and burning bridges Putin is "winning friends and influencing people"(apologies to the author...I couldn't resist) . He is strengthening his economy while forming partnerships. He is, strangley enough, bringing stability back to his people by moving away from democracy. What many here may have trouble understanding, while we favor our system and think it is the best; many do not agree. And many do not look favorably on the US pushing their system on them and walking away leaving them with instability and poverty in our wake. In my opinion we have the best system... flawed for sure...but I prefer it to the alternative. The thing we need to remember is that is probaly the same sentiment of many who live under and alternative system of government. I guess I have really strayed in my meandering thoughts here but I think the picture we have to be looking at is so much bigger then what is being covered in our media.
"Axis of Weasels" vs "Axis of Idiots"
hmnnnn...
At least the "weasels" are trying to deal with things in the reality-based world.
the "idiots" mind you - well - they just don't get the "democracy at the barrel of a gun" thing doesn't work..
Then again, the "idiots" expected the "weasels" to give them a blank check to do whatever they want. That's what the "idiots" want the UN to be, a rubber-stamp for their "god-given" mandate..
(my definition of the "axis of idiots" being shrub-cheney-rumsfeld)
I think this discussion lacked the perspective and knowledge that Ann Coulter could have provided. For example, neither the host or the guest seemed to connect this "axis of weasels" to liberals. Coulter surely could have filled that gap.
... to Iran. I kinda missed John Gibson there, too.
Open_mind wrote:
How to frame the issue...
Step 1:
Ridicule the opposition as irrational. It has the bonus effect of making your own mindless supporters feel superior.
Step 2:
Avoid making any real rational arguments. Keep it ad hominem is our motto.
Repeat Step 1
--------
Looks like your observation could be applied to +90% of the posts here at MMFA. ;-)
I only counted 8 out of 13 that fit your description.. Of course you wrote two of the five that didn't. ;-)
Seems like you couldn't resist.. Your first note included...
Open_mind wrote: It is a good thing they evolved to not have consciences or else there would be an epidemic of insomnia in much of our country.
Make it 9 out of 13. :-) You guys are only at 69% so far. Must be people left for lunch.. :-)
I didn't call conservatives irrational and I made an argument.
I even provided (albeit tongue-in-cheek) reasoning as to why it is apparent conservatives don't have consciences. They seem to be sleeping okay.
I don't claim to be above ad hominem attacks and I am sure you can find better examples of my work, but in my own defense, I usually try to provide an argument as well.
I will take your post as a friendly reminder to try harder in the future to avoid such pitfalls.
Thanks.
That's good advice to use the next time you're anchoring a news show, or are a guest on one.
Thanks. Just trying to keep my standards from dropping to the level of a self-proclaimed "fair and balanced®" professional news service.
You have nothing critical to say about the topic at hand---the irrational, ad hominem, name-calling attack by a global news broadcast, but plenty of critique for a few anonymous posters that have the temerity to respond with a degree of justifiable anger.
--"Looks like your observation could be applied to +90% of the posts here at MMFA. ;-)"
To 90% of posts from conservatives like you? Agreed.
Unfortunately, i will agree with you that ad hominem attacks are not under the sole ownership of the right.
As far as calling someone or an argument irrational. I don't have a problem with it, if people provide evidence to that fact.
The problem with Foxnews and other conservatives is that they don't really provide evidence as to why this axis is acting like weasels. What is weaselly, irrational and/or against their national interests? Is it weaselly to act in your own national interests? Should everyone just take a backseat to US political and/or diplomatic goals? If this is a presumption, who exactly is being irrational?
Is it weaselly to refuse to follow a fool on a fool's errand? What these neo-Cons can't admit is that their beloved leader has totally bungled his (Karl's) "vision" for a peaceful, democratic Middle East.
My guess is that Fox is just hamming it up and making good graphics. After all, to ridicule our valued allies, Russia, Germany, and France, who show their support for the U.S. fighting islamofacism, by again not supporting the U.S., Fox is only playing to their base of viewers.
Or.. as some conspiracy theorists think, they are in cahoots with MMFA so there will be something fresh every day for all my friends here to feed on. ;-)
Both France and Germany have troops RIGHT NOW in Afghanistan. You can pretend all you want that Iraq was invaded to fight the terrorists who werent there. We arent dumb enough to swallow it. Neither were France and Germany. Just because YOU were doesnts say much. Take that problem to your psychatrist and ask HIM why YOU are so gullible not whey France and Germany werent.
I have taken the position on many threads here that Israel had the right to defend themselves as they believed was neccessary. I have also conceded it remains to be seen if this will in fact be to their advantage or not. I have also pointed out that the US needs to do what is in the US's best interest. These other countries are doing what they believe is in the best interest of THEIR countries and are representing THEIR people. To publically denegrate them is NOT in the US's best interest. This concept that other countries have to do what is in the US's best interest or what this administration feels is best is plain ridiculous. In fact while I support Israel's right to self defense I also think the US is screwing up its role. This administration doesn't have a clue how to operate with diplomacy and at the very least a public appearence of neutrality to negotiate the situation in the US's best interest.
Open_mind wrote:
I have also pointed out that the US needs to do what is in the US's best interest.
--------
Me: I would argue that the U.S. is doing is in the best interest of Russia, France, and Germany, and any other Western country. They can comfortably sit on the sidelines and actively work counter to their long term interest by taking the "appeaser" route. But it is in their best interest, in the long run for us to fight and defeat Islamofacism.
As for the U.S. self interest, on the contrary, we support Israel, not because it is in our best interest to rankle the Islamist regimes in the region, but because it is the right thing to do. If the U.S. acted solely out of national interest, it would have taken over the region any number of times so we'd still have $.49/gal gasoline.
Okay, maybe that is a little extreme. But we sure would have jettisoned our support of Israel if we based our alliances solely on self-interest.
I believe the quote was mine that you cited. With respect to appeasment: It is shortsighted to think that appeasment is not sometimes in our best interest. It isn't a bad word. Diplomacy is another one of those boogyman words they have a problem with. Both are in our best interest economically and security wise. The thinking that these are negative terms is partly the problem with this administration's foreign policies and actions.
You may be correct in a philosophical way, but appeasment is commonly understood to be he policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.
IMHO, appeasement is something totally different than diplomacy although it may seem to you that one leads to another.
Forgive my rather pedestrian analogy, but I view islamofacism the same way Reese in "The Terminator" describes the cyborg coming after Sarah, "You still don't get it. He'll find her. That's what he does. All he does...".
Now apply that same intensity to islamofacists. They'll not stop with Iraq or Israel. They do not care if their minions die or if they kill their own. They'll keep on coming and killing unless we stop them or they conquer us.
Frankly, appeasement has a rather poor history. As you recall, the British and French tried it against Hitler. We all know how well that worked.
Actually you are mostly quite right. Appeasement itself has had a poor history. The problem is that appeasement is not easily identifiable in the present. It is something that is usually attributed in hindsight.
You can't know if what you are giving the other side will prevent a war until it happens. Therefore if you make a concession to an opponent and hostilities cease, that wasn't really appeasement, but bargaining and diplomacy.
On the other hand, if you make a concession and the opponent attacks you five, ten, twenty years later, you failed miserably at trying to appease your opponent.
One could argue that Saddam Hussein tried to appease the US on several occasions, but eventually failed.
I would say that appeasement is always a failure due to the keenness of 20/20 hindsight.
People who argue against negotiating between Israel and their foes by citing appeasement are reading tea-leaves or disecting a goat's stomach and not telling you about it.
It is a loaded word, filled with different perspectives.
I heard a military "expert" on the radio who made a better point. He said that you cannot kill an idea with military action. You can only kill it with a better idea. Where the Western powers are failing is by responding to Islamofascism with military force. All that does is drive more people toward into the arms of the fascists...especially the indiscriminant methods currently employed by Israel. Do you really think they can kill all the terrorists?
I don't know what the solution is, but I know it is NOT massive, indiscriminate killing of civilians. That will only make the situation worse.
Appeasment is a tool to use in conflict resolution which is often a component of diplomacy. Is it always the right tool...of course not. Every situation has to be evaluated on its own merits. But to discount it as an effective tool by picking out when you believe it has failed is foolish. It has also had many successes. You will not win the "war" on Terror. You will not eliminate terrorists and terrorism so to think the only viable solution is force is patently incorrect. Force may win a battle here and there but ultimatley it has to be about what will make the US safer and what is in our best interest. Some battles in the "war" can be won through appeasment and diplomacy and it takes a skilled diplomat to know when to use agression and when to use appeasment. Some times the picture is bigger then the battle and that is when diplomacy must take the lead.
Israel tried it with Arafat. They proposed giving Arafat 97% of the land he wanted. Where did it get them? The infatada.
It only works when you are dealing with rational people and governements like Israel giving the Sinai back to Egypt in exchange for peace.
As we have seen, the islamofacists are not rational. Therefore appeasement will never work.
For Israel to have tried appeasement, you would have to demonstrate that Arafat accepted a concession, which you didn't. The Israeli withdrawal from occupied areas may be seen my many as a concession that might be a better example.
It is kind of hard to appease someone without giving them something more than jus an offer.
Besides, like I said, there is no real way to know if you are appeasing someone until they betray your agreement. Otherwise calling some agreement appeasement is largely an opinion of the future historic conclusion.
Your title states appeasment never works. But then you actually point to an example when appeasment did in fact work. Failures always get more press. But the success are there. Appeasment may not be the only tool to use but it certainly does have its useful applications for the issue...as does at times a more brute force response. Neither one can be used without the other on this issue if we want to do what is in the US best interest and security and also for the best interest of the affected regions. You may think return violence is the only answer but respectfully I disagree. I think there are times when violence will hurt our interests and security and further destabilize the region...which once again I disagree with this administration that destanilizing the region is in the best interest of the US.
that should read "destabilizing"
Israel never conceded that much of the West Bank. They had a sliding scale of what THEY would control, what they would jointly control WITH a Palestinian authority and the very small amount that Palestinians would control. That view of Oslo is in no way legitimate. That is a canard the right keeps throwing around that is inconsistant with the ACTUAL agreement at Oslo. Oslo was a million miles from Israeli appeasement and much closer to Palestinian capitulation. Which is why it was rejected.
[link to zmag.org]
On September 28, Israel and the PLO initiated the second major step in the peace process (Oslo II), dividing the West Bank into 3 zones, with extensive further arrangements (not yet fully available). The Palestinian National Authority (PA) is to exercise total control in Zone A while Israel exercises total control in Zone C. Zone B is the region of “autonomy”: here the PA administers Palestinian villages under overall Israeli “security control.” Zone A consists of the municipal areas of towns populated exclusively by Palestinians. Zone C includes all Jewish settlements. Zone B is a collection of scattered sectors, about 100 of them according to Israeli maps.
The delimitation of the three zones is not precisely clear. According to the analysis accompanying Israeli maps, Zone C covers two-thirds of the West Bank and Zone B another 30 percent, with 3 percent in the Palestinian Zone A. Prime Minister Rabin, however, informed the Knesset (Parliament) on October 5 that Zone C includes 73 percent of the West Bank, the Israeli press reported. The map and analysis in the New York Times assigns 70 percent of the West Bank to Zone C. The authoritative Washington Report on Israeli Settlement estimates Zone A at 1 percent of the West Bank, Zone C at 72 percent (relying on published Israeli sources). <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Now I dont know on what Planet TAKING 72% of the West Bank outright and controlling another 20+% somehow equals giving Arafat 97% of what he asked for but it certainly doesnt look that reasonable to me much LESS apeasement
He knew he was making sh*t up when he said Israel offered Arafat 97% of the land he requested. He just got a kick out of making you waste the time and energy necessary to research and write a response to his nonsense.
Although MMFA proves the methodology of exposing conservative disinformation is useful, the best direct response to a Con is usually some version of "shut up fool".
As for the U.S. self interest, on the contrary, we support Israel, not because it is in our best interest to rankle the Islamist regimes in the region, but because it is the right thing to do.
------------------------------
How naive. The key to international relations is power pure and simple.
Is the best synopsis of the situation I have seen on this board. I also agree Israel has a right to defend itself. We can argue what is most practical for each side. What WE are doing right now I think is shortsighted and not helping. Our role SHOULD be crucial here. I dont think this administration is up to the complexities of the problem.
When a theif breaks into a home, and the owner tries to stop him, and the thief shoots him and his family, how can the theif claim "self-defence"?
This is the situation with Israel. It is a land thief, a mass murderer, a torturer, a war criminal, a terrorist state. It has three million people trapped in the world's largest ghettos and is destroying Lebanon as we speak. Israeli pilots are putting their bombsights on civilians and pulling the triggers, knowing full well they are killing civilians, all in the name of jewish supremacism.
Israel has long lost any claim to self-defence. Serial killers cannot claim self-defence when murdering their victims.
The right of self-defense has limits. If I step on your toe, you have the right to remove my foot but probably not the right to hack it off and bomb my neighbor's apartment building.
did Cameron Diaz start reading "news" for FOX?
and would like to see more... (apologies to Groucho)
Don't you know she was hired for her brains and intellect alone?
You're right, Fawlty. FOX would never hire pretty young women to say the stupid things that angry old men think in order to garner high ratings among angry old men who get off on hearing pretty young women say the stupid things they think. Silly me!
No need to adjust their hearing aids either, by cracky.
They just need to remember to take the right pill first...
If Limbaugh hasn't bogarted them all.
[link to www.washingtonpost.com]
At least Fox knows how to wrap packages.
Here is some proof of how bad the situation is in the Middle East right now. I just went to excite.com under the International headlines and these were the top 3: - Violence Kills 63 People Across Iraq - Fighting Rages in Lebanon Border Village - Iran's President Rejects U.N. Resolution
How can someone expect the "weasels" to jump into a situation like this?
I wonder if Bush ever has nightmares and hears Colin Powell's now immortal words (I'm paraphrasing) "If you do this, it's your mess. If you break it, you will have to fix it."
By "staying the course," (and I believe by continuing to repeat that as our policy) we have helped create three crises instead of one. If you're one of our enemies and just keep hearing we're going to "stay the course," you have to be thrilled because they've obviously been successful opposing us.
Neuboy
but since FOX is not a real anything (much less a News organization) this story is marginally interesting (kind of like Smoking is Bad for you).
Frankly, compared to FOX Aljazerra is a paragon of objectivity.
[link to english.aljazeera.net]
A host on a "news" show on Fox being so bias, why am I not surprised.
Please refer to Open_mind's first comment titled:
How to frame the issue...
And apply where needed.
;-)
LOL, now the Cons are regulating the ethics of liberal rhetoric. Boy that Will to Power is something else!
Friends in my little town were using 'Axis Of Weasels' to refer to Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld within a week of the infamous State Of The Union address. Conservatives stole it and used it to tag countries with centuries more tradition than the U.S. Karl Rove is the thiefmeister-this is the guy who hired hookers to ride around in his car to increase his popularity to win class president. Loser with a capital L.
have first hand experience with meddling in Middle Eastern affairs and fighting the resulting insurgencies that arose. So did England, I'm suprised they followed Bush off this cliff.
This is clearly a sign that the support for the Bush admin. is truly waning. Now FOX, in increasingly lonely company, must dig up the old Euro-bashing again because they are desperately trying to tap into the patrio-fascist Bush fan base.
I read somewhere that Fox News' ratings primarily come from the 65 and older crowd. One would surmise that Idol garners younger viewers, while Family Guy picks up the middle-agers. When Cheney stays at hotels, one of his bizarre requirements is that the TV be set to Fox News. He also requires the thermostat be set at 68 degrees, presumably so he won't decompose. Fox News is simply lowest common denominator brought to all-time lows. Even Springer has more credibility.
LET'S SEE IF FOX NEWS WILL BE CALLING THEM WEASELS WHEN AND IF THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO WILL BE PROTECTING ISRAEL ON THAT BORDER FROM HEZBOLLAH.I LOVE HOW FOX NEWS AND RIGHT-WINGERS ARE ALWAYS PUTTING DOWN FRANCE, GERMANY RUSSIA AND THE UN. BUT WHEN THEY ARE ALWAYS ASKING FOR THERE HELP WHEN THE US CAN'T DO IT. IF I WAS THEM I WOULD TELL FOX NEWS AND THE RIGHT-WING TO KISS MY YOU KNOW WHAT AND YOU AND LONDON PROTECT THAT BORDER!!
(though fox news is most underserving of fairness)
...tagging this story with the headline "only on fox" is deceptive to the extent that it implies fox is the only media outlet that uses or revives the phrase "axis of weasels." our mediamatters researchers who have searched lexis-nexis should know this: in the past year it has been used by CNN, the st. louis post-dispatch and the milwaukee sentinel.