The Bush Derangement Syndrome Support Group

It’s got to be tough.  I don’t envy her, but I want her to know that as a fellow victim of such a tragic and viral epidemic, I’m there for her, ready to provide a shoulder to lean upon, cry upon, whatever.  I didn’t think it was possible, not among someone like that, not among someone who I thought was innoculated against such a dreaded disease, but as it turns out, there is no vaccine, and anyone is capable of falling victim to Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Meet Pam Geller, author of the righty blog Atlas Shrugs and member of the Dominatrix Elite Strike Force of the Hard Right whose other members include Michelle Malkin and She Who Must Not Be Named.  Pam is such that she couldn’t listen to a Green Day song without bitching about their bleeding heart politics, and yet, the tests are in, and she has it.  Thanks to Kevin Hayden who did the initial lab tests and came up with the positive results for chronic BDS.

What could have infected the hardcore Bushite with Bush Derangement Syndrome?  Unlike the leading cause in most cases of BDS which is often a healthy injection of reality, wth Pam the disease set in as a result of Bush failing to stand by the “Israel is Holier Than Thou” attitude of the most devout of neoconservatives.

One sentence on behalf of the President which gives a nod to the idea that perhaps, just maybe, an eensy weensy little bit, Israel may have possibly not been completely and totally faultless in the tension that exists between it and the surrounding Muslim states was enough to drive her over the edge.

It is, of course, this attitude towards Irsrael that continues to prevent cooler heads from debating effectively the conflict betwen Israel and Palestinians, or the greater tensions between Israel and hte greater Muslim world.  It is the idea that to recognize any complicity on Israel’s part is the equivalent of anti-semitism that has sts like a guard dog against those who would try to look at the issue on a more level playing field and thusly helped facilitate the continued intellectual gridlock that exists surrounding the issue.  And I would be remiss in ignoring the idea that it is this gridlock which stands in the way of real solutions being found, the kind of solutions that don’t involve radical Islamist groups such as Hamas winning elections.

Pam further shows her lightweight status on Israel in this little graph:

Of course the Islamazis must have Jerusalem – it means everything to the Jews and nothing to the Muslims so of course they must rip the heart out of the Jewish homeland.

There are two ways  of saying someone is wrong.  There is the disagreement along intellectual lines where people quibble over the theoretical validity of ideas, and then there is just calling someone out because they are factually wrong.

This statement would fall along the latter lines, to say that Jerusalem and israel as a whole means nothing to the Muslims beyond a strip of land they can use to cause jews unending pain is about as off as you can get.  For instance, I remember driving by the Dome of the Rock, one of the Holiest sites in the Muslim faith, and let’s not forget the centuries during which Muslims called that patch of land their home.

I’m not siding completely with the Muslims here, far from it.  But I think they have some gripes, just as the Israelis do, and suggesting that culpability for the violence and tension that exists there might actually be a shared commodity is not, in my way of thinking, necessarily antithetical to a mutually beneficial outcome.

But, whatever.  All of this takes backseat to the fact that a much beloved neconservative has been stricken down with the terrible Bush Derangement Syndrome.  But I stand here as an example that it doesn’t have to be the end of the world.  There are thousands, maybe millions of BDS sufferers who, with the right medication and strict regimes still live long, healthy, and fulfilling lives.

Pam, come join the Bush Derangement Syndrome Support Group.  We’re here for you.  We can make a difference.

8 Responses to “The Bush Derangement Syndrome Support Group”

  1. There’s a difference between “having gripes” and being terrorists. It’s pretty clear that this was an agreed upon statement, one that got vetted by all parties involved.

    The line doesn’t bother me so much, because I know it was more about appeasing the narrow sensibilities of the radical Fatah elements than having anything to do with substance.

    If a legitimate and lasting peace deal can be reached, nobody will care about this line 25 years from now. But until then, the West has to stroke the egos of everyone involved, and continue to play the moral equivalence game. I think that’s the wrong ideological road to go down–equating check points and walls with suicide bombers and rockets directed at school yards–but if it’s a perfunctory nicety that gets us closer to peace, well, whatever.

  2. Cernig says:

    Hi Kyle,

    Here’s the ‘graph from before the one Pammy quotes (with my emphasis for clarity):
    The representatives of the government of the state of Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization, represented respectively by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President Mahmoud Abbas, in his capacity as chairman of the PLO executive committee and president of the Palestinian Authority, have convened in Annapolis, Maryland, under the auspices of President George W. Bush of the United States of America, and with the support of the participants of this international conference having concluded the following joint understanding:”

    It wasn’t Bush, it was Olmert. Priceless.

    Regards, C

  3. Cernig says:

    Kevin,

    “equating check points and walls with suicide bombers and rockets directed at school yards”

    How about equating cluster bombs and tanks used on civilian populations with suicide bombers and rockets? Or did you forget those?

    Regards, C

  4. Cernig, I’m not defending all of Israel’s behavior, but many of the accusations of brutality and excess levied against them are gross exaggerations, if not manufactured products of a movement that needs to maintain Palestinian victimhood in order to sustain their membership and rationale for existence.

    I know, as a european socialist, it’s hard for you to see the difference. That’s fine, and I know moral equivalence is your thing.

  5. Actually, Kevin, I’m gonna have to side with Cernig on this, and as he can attest, I’m neither European, nor am I socialist.

    Palestinians had a right to be upset with Israel from the beginning as a result of getting ousted out of their homes to make way for the new state formed shortly after WWII. The animosity, of course, extends long before that, of course. Jerusalem is the home to the three holiest places in the world among the three most powerful religions in the world.

    But, that’s all off topic, really. Israelis have pretty much screwed over the Palestinians and continue to do so. Let’s put aside the cluster bombs and tanks that Cernig sites, and just move on to the oh so benevolent check points you mention. These are not quick five minute “show me your papers” check points, but an hour long ordeal that Palestinians must face twice a day just on their way to and from work. We’re talking about women giving birth in these check points, getting seperated from their babies there, or worse, losing them due to lack of medical attention.

    I recommend you read Alice Rothchild’s Broken Promises, Broken Dreams to get an idea of the proportionality of the entire conflict.

    The point is this, and we need to start adopting this kind of mentality in our foreign policy or suffer at our own peril. You mention moral equivalence with an air of disrespect, but just as I’m sure you would call moral relativism a negative, so too is the moral absolutism of the current administration and the staunch pro-Israel lobby. The problem is that under such moral absolutism, terrorism will always and forever be nothing more, and the underlying problems that exist beneath the face of terrorism that allow it to exist will never be addressed.

    Does Hamas go to far? Suicide bombings? Yes, all of it, but you must also ask yourself what is it that causes these things? Why would a majority of Palestinians be willing to actually ELECT a group so known to engage and endorse terrorism?

    It is because from their view point, it’s not terrorism, it’s revolution. From their stand point, the Israeli government subjugates them, and the “peaceful” leaders do nothing, they get no progress, they only lock in stasis the state of subjugation that holds their people in thrall. By comparison, these radical groups they fight, they may not exact change, but they at least act in a way that is visible and notable.

    Is it right? No, of course not, but failing to fully grasp the level of complicity that Israel is responsible for means never turning a critical eye upon them, and therefore not forcing them to change the dynamic, to make inroads of compromise that might take power out of the hands of the more radical factions by rewarding the peaceful factions with actual progress that the Palestinian people can measure and respect.

  6. xranger says:

    You’re forgetting that Israel gave up the West Bank and Gaza strip, seemingly unheard-of events a generation ago, and it got them nowhere. The Palestinians used them as launching pads for strikes into Israel, and the court of world opinion didn’t acknowledge that this was a magnanimous event.

  7. Cernig says:

    Kevin,

    I know, as a european socialist, it’s hard for you to see the difference. That’s fine, and I know moral equivalence is your thing. As usual, your smug satisfaction with what you believe you know has no counterpart in reality. I’m well aware of both the fictitious nature of many Palestinian accusations and the very real nature of the tanks and bombs you have twice now glibly discounted. That’s a spurious moral dichotomy if every I saw one.

    Regards, C

  8. Filcher says:

    “You’re forgetting that Israel gave up the West Bank and Gaza strip, seemingly unheard-of events a generation ago,” ~ xranger

    Actually if memory serves me, Israel never had ownership of the West Bank or Gaza, it was an occupying force, both there and in what had been designated an international city (Jerusalem), so the act of giving back does not appear to me as altruistic as it may appear to you. In addition, even after withdrawal Israel still kept the ability to control the palestinians that were living in these territories through power,water, trade and financial limitations, not to mention military operations. IMHO Neither side has been realistic in acknowledging the expectations of the other side, Israel must make reparations to the Palestinians which fled in 1948, and recognise the rights of thePalestinians to their own state, territory, nation, etc. and pull back to the Green Line, Palestinians must accept the fact that Israel is not going to disappear as a nation and formally recognise it’s existence.

Leave a Reply to xranger Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook