George Soros' slimy attack on President Bush
Gerard Jackson
George Soros cannot even begin a sentence without lying. In Wake up America, or live with the consequences (The Australian, 19 October 2004) he began his article with: "I have never been heavily involved in partisan politics . . ." This is a brazen lie. Of course, Soros being Soros means that the rest of the article was no more honest than its opening sentence.
According to Soros "Bush ran in 2000 on a platform promising a 'humble' foreign policy." A normal person would point out that the 9/11 atrocity forced Bush to change his foreign policy. Pretending to be normal, Soros wrote:
"The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, required a strong response. But they also led to suspension of the critical process so essential to a democracy: a full and fair discussion of the issues."
What does Soros mean by a "strong response"? He doesn't say. What does seem to come through is that if he had his way the fanatical bin Laden would still be enjoying Taliban hospitality while Hussein continued to use bribes to slowly dismantle sanctions against his murderous regime.
The second part of his statement is another brazen lie and is equivalent to the lies that Bush "rushed into war" and suppressed criticism. The timeline for overthrowing Saddam was 15 months. I am at a complete loss as to how this could be construed as a rush into war.
Soros' accusation that there was no "fair discussion of the issues" is easily disposed off by the simple fact that on 11 October, 2002, John Kerry supported the October Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Armed Forces against Iraq. Kerry later said that he would still have voted for this war resolution even if he knew Hussein had no WMDs!
Section 3 of the resolution read as follows:
"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
Yet Soros would have us believe that President Bush acted entirely on his own initiative and in total disregard for the views of both Houses. Furthermore, Soros libelled the president by stating that:
"Bush silenced criticism by calling it unpatriotic. For 18 months after September 11, he managed to suppress all dissent. That is how he led the US in the wrong direction."
This is a vicious and calculated lie by a man totally bereft of a single shred of respect for the truth or civilised political discourse. Neither President Bush nor a single member of his administration called any critic of the Iraq Wars "unpatriotic". However, the record unequivocally shows that Soros funded groups and individuals that frequently smeared Bush as an unpatriotic and a liar $#151 and even a traitor.
The marvellously sophisticated Theresa Heinz Kerry smeared Dick Cheney as "unpatriotic. Howard Dean stated that John Ashcroft "is not a patriot." Nita Lowey, another noble Dem, called Republicans "unpatriotic". And the honourable Bob Graham called Bush's Iraq policy "anti-patriotic."
Ted Kennedy — the hero of Chappaquiddick — tagged Bush administration officials "false patriots." The malevolent Michael Moore jumped in with the slur that the GOP are "not patriots . . ."They're hate-triots, and they believe in the politics of hate-triotism.
President Bush has been so demonised by the left that some of them even publicly fantasise about murdering him. Checkpoint, a novella by Nicholson Baker and published by Alfred A. Knopf, is one such effort.
Not to be outdone, the Guardian published a particularly nasty article by the vindictive Charlie Brooker (Dumb show, 23 October 2004) in which he fantasised about bringing back "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley" to murder Bush.
Soros is a cowardly hypocrite who is spending millions of dollars to demonise President Bush. For example, he donates to MoveOn.org, an organisation that supported an ad that portrayed the president as Adolph Hitler. (The response was so hostile MoveOn was forced to distance itself from the ad). This is the same outfit that fabricated the story that Bush had doctored CIA reports. MoveOn also lied about Bush' National Guard service.
The ironically named American Coming Together is another vicious leftwing group that is favoured by the generous Soros. This charming little bunch of liars recently produced an election flyer containing a photo from the '60 of a firefighter hosing a black man. The flyer accused Republicans of trying to suppress the black vote by returning to the tactics of the '60s.
The real slander here is that it was Democrats, not Republicans, who turned hoses and dogs on to Blacks to prevent them voting and demonstrating. ACT is now involved in voter fraud, thanks to Soros' generosity.
So why does Soros fund these hate sites? Because he too compared the Bush administration to Hitler's Third Reich. This is pretty rich coming from a billionaire who recently conspired with a coterie of fellow billionaires at was meant to be a discreet meeting organized with the intention of destroying the Bush administration.
I guess this is what he means by an "open society". Some of us think, however, that this kind of behaviour has more in common with fascist thinking.
Despite Soros' sanctimonious blather, it is the Democrats, not President Bush, who are attempting, with the help of billionaires like Soros, to suppress free speech.
It was Kerry's lawyers who tried to intimidate bookshops in to not stocking Unfit for Command. It's Kerry's freedom-loving lawyers who are trying to intimidated Sinclair Broadcasting in to canceling Stolen Valor. It was the same lawyers who threatened action against TV stations if they ran the swift boat veterans' ads. And it was Kerry lawyers who forced a Pennsylvanian cinema owner into cancelling Stolen Honor.
The word for this bastardry, Soros, is political thuggery. And yet this lying toad has the nerve to falsely claim that President Bush is suppressing debate
Soros claimed that though invading Afghanistan was justified invading Iraq was not, forgetting to mention that Kerry voted for both. He followed with:
"There are many more people willing to risk their lives to kill Americans than there were on September 11". How does he know? Does he really believe that the terrorists who are trying to destroy the Iraq's nascent democracy were not already prepared to kill Americans, or anyone else who got in their way?
And if Iraq had not been liberated what does he think al-Zarqawi and his murderous cronies would be doing now? Knitting for world peace? This killer would be scheming with al-Qaeda and its allies who were given sanctuary in northern Iraq by Saddam.
In order to justify his argument that keeping Saddam in power was the moral thing to do Soros had to ignore the Duelfer Report's findings that President Bush made the right decision in overthrowing Saddam.
Duelfer made it clear that Saddam's bribing of France, Russia, China was succeeding in destroying sanctions. Once sanctions were lifted Saddam would be in a position to resume his WMD programs, particularly his nuke project. These are facts that Soros wilfully ignores.
Soros talks of body bags from Iraq while ignoring 3000 body bags from the 9/11 atrocity as well as body bags from Afghanistan. Why body bags from Iraq are more important than other body bags is a mystery that Soros declines to share with us.
Maybe Soros shares Kerry's highly selective view of body bags. It was Kerry who said in 1994 that:
"If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false assumption that we can effect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no."
US troops dying by courtesy of the UN is acceptable but dying in defence of the US is not unless one has the UN's consent. And this is the bloke who said he would hunt down terrorists the way he hunted down the Viet Cong. The only VC this character killed was a semi-naked, wounded and unarmed teenager. (Note how his VC boast contradicts his "global test").
George Soros writes of Iraqis killed during the war. This is the kind of doublespeak we have come to expect from leftwing hypocrites. Where is his condemnation of Saddam's dead? Why does he ignore the fact that the great majority of the dead are terrorists? Why does he suggest that the Iraqi victims of terrorism were killed by Americans? Why does he also ignore the losses incurred by the Iraqi military against terrorist forces?
He ignores these facts because he doesn't give a damn about the dead. This fanatic's only interest is the destruction of President Bush. And if he has to ruthless exploit war dead to that end — then so be it.
Soros states that "the torture of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison was the work of a few bad apples. It was part of a system of dealing with prisoners put in place by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Public opinion condemns the US worldwide, and our troops in Iraq are paying the price."
This is a vicious lie and one that slanders every serving American soldier. It is so foul that it doesn't even deserve an answer. As for public opinion, more rubbish. This liar is deliberately ignoring the massive anti-American rallies that were held throughout Western Europe in the '60s and '80s.
I grew up in the UK and I can personally testify that anti-Americanism was being ardently fanned by the left throughout the '50s, the '60s and the '70s. (I immigrated to Australia in 1978). We are now seeing this bitter leftwing fruit being harvested by a malevolent leftwing media.
Soros accuses President Bush of spreading the story that "Saddam Hussein was connected with September 11". But no one in the Bush administration ever made such a statement. Soros quotes the September 11 Commission in support of his own lies while ignoring the Commission's view that:
"There were contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq going back clear to the early 1990s, when Osama bin Laden was in Sudan, then when he was in Afghanistan."
Commission also concluded that "Because of offensive actions against al Qaeda since 9/11, and defensive actions to improve homeland security, we believe we are safer today. But we are not safe." — executive summary.
Even the viciously dishonest Levin Report was unable to find a single instance of a member of the Bush administration claiming Saddam was involved in the 9/11 atrocity. In fact, On 31 January, 2003, Newsweek asked Bush if Saddam was involved: His reply? "I cannot make that claim."
Moreover, on 25 June this year the New York Times published an article reporting that US intelligence had concluded that an Iraqi Intelligence document citing collaboration between Iraq and al Qaeda was genuine.
Every one of Soros' paragraphs seems to contain an outrageous lie. The "US went to war on false pretences. Weapons of mass destruction could not be found…" There were no "false pretences." The intelligence reports on WMDs were shared with the Democrats who agreed with them, particularly after George Tenet said the issue was a "slam dunk case".
Senator Edward obviously agreed because he said:
"The terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every reason to believe that Saddam would turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11 had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them" (12 September 2002).
Edwards went even further and publicly declared in September 2001 that Saddam Hussein was "the most serious and imminent threat to our country"? Furthermore, we now know that Hussein deliberately misled Western intelligence into believing that he had WMDs. In the face of these facts the mendacious likes of Soros still insist on calling Bush a liar.
George Soros' claim "that the connection with al-Qa'ida could not be established" was rejected by the very Commission he would have us believe he has studied. What a shocking liar.
According to Soros: "If we had cared about the Iraqi people, we should have had more troops available for the occupation. We should have provided protection not only for the Oil Ministry, but also other ministries, museums, and hospitals."
Two points: There were insufficient troops at the time because Turkey, under pressure from France, had denied access to the US Army. Second, Soros ignored the fact that Clinton had made significant cuts to the military.
Soros then reverted to abusing American troops, accusing them of "invading homes and mistreating prisoners — that alienated and humiliated the population, generating resentment and rage."
What Soros is doing here is insinuating that the brutality of American troops provoked terrorism in Iraq. In other words, it's the troops' fault that Zarqawi is bombing Iraqis, beheading prisoners and murdering allied soldiers.
It's not Kerry who's the flip-flopper but Bush. Here's an example: "The Bush administration's flip-flops and missteps are legion. First the Iraqi army was dissolved, then the US tried to reconstitute it."
That's not a flip-flop. Rightly or wrongly it was decided to demobilise the Iraqi Army. What Soros is hiding is that the new Iraqi Army is not the same as the old one.
In any case, only an idiot or a political bigot could possibly argue that any war plan would remain intact once it came in contact with battlefield realities. And only such a person could argue that changing one's plans in the light of unexpected conditions constitutes a flip-flop
I'll tell what a real flip-flop is, Soros: voting to fund the troops and then voting not to fund them; voting for a war and then opposing it; voting for body armour and then opposing it. Now that's what I call flip-flopping — among other things.
The rest is pure drivel: Iraq is a catastrophe, even thought it is preparing for a free election, Afghanistan is a catastrophe, despite having a successful election, the whole region is a catastrophe, North Korea is a catastrophe (for which you can thank Clinton). According to Soros everything points to catastrophe despite the fact that at the moment the facts, not his fantasies, point to eventual success.
And what is his solution? Kerry can do better. Why? Soros doesn't say. We mere mortals just have to take his God-like word for it. Here's a clue, however. Kerry wants to return to a situation where terrorism is a "nuisance" like prostitution or gambling.
I've got news for this pair: prostitutes don't behead people, they don't blow up school buses and they certainly don't fly airliners into skyscrapers. It's time that people got the message that treating terrorism as nuisance led to even more terrorism — and I do mean 9/11.
Scrape away at Kerry's utterances and you will discover that he has no principled or coherent approach to terrorism or any other problem, come to think of it.
Soros, however, wants, in my opinion, a bloody disaster in Iraq, irrespective of the awful consequences, because this filthy rich America-hating antinomian thug wants both Bush and America to be soundly and permanently defeated. That's how much this corrupt billionaire hates America.
The sooner the American people wake up to this bargain-basement Machiavelli and the sleazy political ambitions of his super rich mates the safer they will be.
George Soros, markets and democracy
The Dems' rich supporters and the stench of fascism
John Kerry tries to censor Vietnam vets and former POWs
Gerard Jackson is Brookes' economics editor
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 25 October 2004