13 Comments

1. monkyboy:

I bet if Bush put a few Democrats in his cabinet America would function better. It’s what real leaders do in a time of “war.”

Nov 30, 2005 - 10:14 pm 2. alcibiades:

Heh, look at the counterview of Shimon at this stage, from Ha’aretz:

Every time he ran for office, the voters pushed him away from the centers of national responsibility. Because they knew, with their sharp senses, that this is a man who has no God other than his personal good….

This path of wheeling and dealing led him yesterday to the moment of truth of his political life. Some 60 years of wheeling and dealing were condensed into one appearance before the nation. He was faced with two alternatives  to show dedication to the path he has walked and believed in all his life, or to take a job with his mate, Ariel Sharon. Once again it was obvious he would not be able to resist the temptation and would choose the second option.

The slap in the face is intolerable, not because of the decision to jump ship after the scathing defeat, but because the man spent the last two weeks making up his mind who to join  as if he were perusing merchandise, as if he were about to embark on a political career.

Plunge the knife in and twist.

I imagine if Harry did such a thing, that would be his fate, too.

Nov 30, 2005 - 10:26 pm 3. Shochu John:

It is clear that the moderate way in Israel is the only way forward. The “kill ‘em all” hawks on both sides really have no interest in peacefully coexisting. The “let’s march together” doves on both sides would have the entire problem solved too quickly, and the bulk of Israelis and Palestinians would decry the compromise as unacceptable. The Sharon/Peres party is the country’s best hope for making small, but definite, steps towards a final and lasting peace. Provided the Palestinians keep their militants as marginalized as the Israelis are promising to keep their Likudniks, there is a definite glimmer of hope on this one.

I had to smile at this comment, though, from Roger, “‘To put country before party.’ Can you imagine, say, Harry Reid ever writing something like that?”

To credibly criticise partisanship, it helps if you do not limit yourself to the opposite party. I think that counts as missing your own point.

Dec 1, 2005 - 12:04 am 4. Roger:

Good point, Shochu John, but if you searched on this site, you would find that I condemn partisans on both sides of the aisles all the time. And I agree with monkyboy above, Bush should have brought Democrats into his cabinet during these times. (I’m a registered Democrat myself and have voted for a Repub only once for President.)

Dec 1, 2005 - 2:31 am 5. David Thomson:

ìSo all Bush has to do is fight the war. And if he really wants to torment the Democrats–and advance the war effort–he could make Joe Lieberman Secretary of Defense.

–William Kristolî

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/423jshnf.asp

Would Senator Joseph Lieberman accept? Iím all for it. Are there any other Democrats worthy of consideration—or are the vast majority unwitting enemies of Western Civilization? The Bush administration already has one Democrat in its cabinet: Norman Mineta. Unfortunately, this politically correct man has caused enormous harm.

Dec 1, 2005 - 6:07 am 6. Piranha:

I suppose that I could imagine Harry Reid doing this if he had just been rejected by his own party, and he were a ruthless, self-serving, power-hungry octegenarian like Shimon Peres. Don’t forget that two weeks ago Peres was running to be head of the Labor Party. It was only after he lost his election that he decided to put country over party. This man is remarkably self-serving.

And I haven’t found Ha’aretz’s coverage of Sharon’s Kadima party to be negative. I think that, now that Peres finally is out of the Labor Party, the editors believe that they can begin to expose him for what he really is.

Dec 1, 2005 - 8:10 am 7. Camp Runamok:

Roger,

I agree with you insofar as “…leaving the stage” goes. This move shows Arik as the doer, Peres as the Clintonesque diplomat with one finger in the air, and both of them forming a geriatric party that will be absolutely gone within a decade.

Meanwhile, look for the right-of-center “Youth Brigade” of Netanyahu, Olmert, et. al. to solidify their hold on the remainder of Likud and for Peretz to completely alienate everybody remaining in Labor save his Histadrut buddies.

The only long-term hope for Kadimah is to poach these disaffected Labor voters. While many Likud apparatchiks have found their way after Sharon I am not so sure that many voters will do likewise. Peretz, meanwhile, will capitalize on Sephardic ethnic politicking (he is Moroccan) and dreamy literary idealism (his new party leadership is packed with academics) to maintain his own leadership but vastly alienate the public in the process. Where are most of these left-of-center (NOT left wing, Roger!) going to go? Noplace left but Kadima.

Prediction; in 15 years Labor is an insignificant fringe party yelling from the sidelines alongside Tzomet, Meretz, UTJ and Shas. Meanwhile Kadima and the reformulated Likud occupy the lions share plurality but no majority. Unstable coalitions still rule the Knesset roost. IOW, SSDD!

Dec 1, 2005 - 8:42 am 8. Joseph (formerly Samuel):

Roger!

Do you and others have short memories or just not paying attention? Bush has tried to bring numerous Democrats in from John Breaux to Tony Knowles from Alaska, only Norm Mineta accepted. Unfortunately for the most part the Democrats Bush does have or used for consulting are all former Democrats (Condi, Wolfowitz, Giuliani, etc.) which is what poses his real problem, most Democrats that would be supportive are the those that have left the Party and outside of Joe Lieberman (a wonderful idea yet he would become just as reviled as Wolfowitz), who could he bring on? Maybe Sam Nunn or Zell Miller? They would also be hated. After Richard Clarke and George Tenet who could he trust? Does he need a Democratic version of a Bill Cohen to muddy up his goals if he thinks he can more stick to plan with thin support? The Democrats Bush could bring on (or has had) Democrats hate (Richard Perle, James Woolsey), is Joe Lieberman willing to do what the others would not and put himself in that list? It is most Democrats who have refused to make the sacrifice, I don’t think Bush fears any thing like this at all, but he certainly isn’t going to make a political move to jeopardize the WOT. I would love it if he could, I would love it if Joe accepted yet I understand why he wouldn’t.

I will also suggest to you Roger that to equate our political situation here as at all comparable to Israel is naive. Bush doesn’t have near the problems with the right as Sharon does with his right wing, the amount of Liberal support Bush might add is negligible compared to what he may lose, a greater portion of the Israeli population including liberals understand that terror is a reality, our population is less convinced, especially liberals and that will not change by bringing on Lieberman. More obvious is their is not enough support accross the spectrum of or society for the WOT to risk insulting or sidelining the support from the right, for Israel 9/11 would not come to be viewwd as some aberration bearing little future risk of repeating as it has here by so many, the political situations are very different. Dividing society into three parts is silly, we do not have a Parliamentary system and coalitions are built the way Bush has done it, but dreaming isn’t necessarily a bad thing just realize what it is.

The most important thing Bush needs to do is keep a Republican Congress and majorities are kept and fed very different in our system. We’ll just have to leave this decision to the one man who has shown the steadiest nerve through all the… President Bush.

Dec 1, 2005 - 8:45 am 9. reliapundit - the astute blogger:

Rog – Peres and Sharon are old dear friends, and the last of that GREAT generation of Israelis – the FOUNDERS!

It is fitting and proper that they should be united in partisanship now too.

They were ALWAYS united in their love of Israel and their dedication to it.

And they knew that.

Peres was just a dove. And naive.

Sharon is a daring cynic.

And Sharon turned out to be right – about Arafat and so much else.

And Peres KNOWS it.

And Shaorn knows how to best use Peres’ strengths.

They will make a great team.

BTW: is this the LION AND LAMB!?

Dec 1, 2005 - 10:09 pm 10. Piranha:

To write, “Peres was just a dove. And naive.” Is to ignore a sizeable constituency in Israel who believe that he was so much more.

Moshe Sharett, the former Israeli Prime Minister, wrote in his personal diary in 1957, “”I have stated that I totally and utterly reject [Shimon] Peres and consider his rise to prominence a malignant, immoral disgrace. I will rend my clothes in mourning for the State if I see him become a minister in the Israeli government.”

There are many who shared and continue to share Sharett’s concern. I don’t believe that it had anything to do with hawkish or dovish political views.

Dec 2, 2005 - 8:00 am 11. Piranha:

Just to be clear: I think that everyone interested in Shimon Peres should read what he has said, in his own words (mostly since 1996):

http://www.gamla.org.il/english/peres/index.htm

This is not some beloved, doddering old uncle who belonged to the Communist Party in the 1930s.

Dec 2, 2005 - 8:09 am 12. john:

Quite interesting blog. I’m looking forward to your next blog.

Dec 3, 2005 - 3:11 am 13. john:

Quite interesting blog. I’m looking forward to your next blog.

Dec 3, 2005 - 3:24 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: