- This topic has 33 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Candles? Cards to the family? Tzedaka? Visiting the kevura?
The US Flag will fly at half-staff at my home and office.
My interaction with the Federal Government may be curtailed this week. Traditionally there has been a three day shutdown of non-essential Federal services upon the death of a former President. Will Trump order this? Your guess is as good as mine,probably the same way we mourn other non jewish former world leaders.
Ordinarily, this would be a simple protocol issue with no particular political significance but these days, everything seems to have political significance including what tooth paste CT uses. Frankly CT, my guess is probably better than yours and I’d guess that protocol will be followed, if only because the President will be too busy with “affairs of State” to concern himself with it.
1. Old people normally die. It’s younger people dying we should get up set over.
2. Any who works for the Federal government (or is on a “Federal” schedule , common among contractors in the greater Washington era), gets Wednesday off so they can get to minyan without a hassle.
Remind yourself from the famous exchange between Bush 41 and Mike Wallace who asked whether he was “too nice a guy” to be successful as President. Bush replied that ‘toughness” and “resolve” in foreign policy do not require one to engage in vulgarity or demeaning one’s opponents. Also remind yourself that one can take time away from family and studies to volunteer to defend you country in times of national crisis. If his petirah brings only a brief respite in the current wave of polarization in our political dialogue, it will be the best we collectively do in his memory, both as yidden and Americans.
We should daven that America be granted mechilla for replacing a good man like George Bush with the vulgar Bill Clinton.
Now Joseph, in the spirit of Chanukah, let’s be pals at least for 8 days…. You clocked that one, but good…😁
He started a tradition of oil wars. His son intentionally lied about Iraq having nuclear weapons, a lie which cost many American lives.
But, yes, let’s promote him to sainthood for the sole reason that Trump might not like him.
Gadol: “Bush replied that ‘toughness” and “resolve” in foreign policy do not require one to engage in vulgarity or demeaning one’s opponents.”
Your logic is: using words to make peace in Korea = bad. Getting thousands of Americans killed in the Middle East, but phrasing it nicely = good. Unbelievable. You really are just like a robot incapable of independent thought. You just say the opposite of whatever Trump says.Neville….What does 43’s bad intelligence/Cheney’s lies have to do with 41? And yes, having a boorish, vulgar and narcissistic occupant in the WH takes us all down. If thats “Robotic” than I’m pleased to work on my immiitation of R2D2 (aka Trumkpofs parroting his tweets)
Are you serious? Your coping mechanism is to scapegoat Dick Cheney?
You’re an extreme liberal and yet you, and many others, are defending the Bush’s simply because Trump had the guts to say they made terrible decisions. Your rationalization of your rampant inconsistency is to blame the vice president?
My point isn’t that you have to like Trump. It’s that you’re basing your entire outlook on the world on believing the opposite of what he says, even when he says things that YOU were probably saying a few years back like criticizing the Bush’s. It’s as though a liberal college professor wrote a simple IF THEN statement and called it Gadolhador and gave it a CR account.
Other posters like CT and the other Democrats on that midterms thread had actual points and substance to their stances. You have never made any attempt at this in political or religious threads, and don’t pretend I’m the first one to point this out. Now matter how many of us point it out, you only seem to get worse.
“Having a boorish, vulgar and narcissistic occupant in the WH takes us all down.”
Oh please. I hate boorish, vulgar and narcissism as much as, often more than, the next guy but stop pretending our former presidents were any less disgusting. Clinton personifies narcissism (to the point of assuming all females are his own) and greed. Obama was all about himself at anyone’s expense, as long as he could slap a sticker on it and call it a legacy.
The denial thing is really irritatingObama and Bush are not in the same category as Trump and Clinton.
Neville: If mindless adherence to self-adulating tweets interspersed with demeaning commentary on just about anyone who disagrees is your notion of “substance”, than I’m glad not to be part of that vacuous segment of the tzibur that finds the current occupant of the WH to not be anywhere in the same league with respect to either Bush 41 or 43. No, I did not then or now approve of much of the Bush/Cheney policy agenda but there was an element of dignity that is important to some of us. As RebYidd23 Obama wasn’t ever in the same league as Trump, (and a much lesser degree Clinton). Trump has achieved some positive outcomes in both domestic and foreign policy that could have been more effective and sustainable. To those who claim “its just Trump being Trump” and his success is entirely a function of what some call “political incorrectness”, there really is no logical response.
Honestly, let’s stop pretending that anyone but those with a personal connection care when a retired politician dies. Why does everything need to be blown up into being such a big deal?
In listening to some of the political hespeds today regarding Bush 41, there was an interesting analogy made by a highly respected Republican who noted that some of the same “belated love” had been shown by “Liberals” after the petirah of Ronald Reagan, the same liberals who castigated his policies and agenda throughout his Presidency. However, he followed the point with the rcognition that they were not changing their fundamental views on the Reagan presidency, only on the fact that he had upheld the dignity of the office and maintained a civil discourse with his political opponents (aka the frequently invoked story of his drinking a l’chayim with Tip O’Neill). I think that is the real point many of us on your left feel about the legacy of Bush 41. Did he drag us unnecessarily into a fiasco in Iraq? Probably yes but we probably would have gone in anyway for other reasons. However, the country today is a very different place than it was 2 years ago for reason some will agree with but many obviously don’t.
Does anyone remember when Israel was asking for loan guarantees to settle Russian Jews?
Just asking.Strange….
Where are the Trump bashers vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia today? Bush adored the royal Saudi family even when hands got chopped off.. Let’s be honest… The patrician, wasp George Bush pinched his nostrils when in proximity with Israel.
Dubbya was different, but pop liked sheiks & oil..BoccaMagid: What you say is true but I think the overall judgement on Bush will be more positive. He used some really bad judgement when he lashed out in the early 90s against the Jewish lobbying efforts on the hill in support of funding for helping EY resettle Russian Jews an had a really toxic relationship with Shamir. However, he was very involved behind the scenes in helping bring the Ethiopian jews to EY and in helping EY on critical national security issues. I’m no a big fan of Abe Foxman of ZOA but he observed that when yidden look back on Bush 41 they will see a “real Tzadik”.
why do we all the sudden care how to mourn someone, when bush dies, why dont we ask this when a yid is niftar- how to mourn/do teshuvah?
Just Asking…….Trump Fan, the process of mourning for a Jew is something that’s already known.
Foxman was head of ADL, not ZOA…
ADL now , under J. Greenblatt is a left wing anti,-Jewish values, even sometimes anti – Israel org.
ZOA is the only proud Jewish/Zionist org. under the great Mort Klein.I suspect Foxman said that as a dig against Trump. As ex- CEO of ADL, he recently blamed Trump for increase in anti-Semitism, even as his former employer agency is busy manufacturing fake anti-Semitic data to also bash Trump.
He pulls out his “Holocaust survivor” card when it suits him.
However, he was a pretty decent fellow compared to his successor who’s turning the ADL into a progressive org., which… oh, by the way, is also Jewish.
ADL, HIAS, AMER. JEWISH CONGRESS, under the now meshuga Lauder are a shame & a sham as far as sddressing Jewish concerns are concerned.How did President Bush change our country?
The Rambam says that חסידי אומות העולם יש להם חלק בעולם הבא pious people among other nations have a part in the world to come. From all the euligies we can conclude that this applies him.
William Harrison was arguably the best pres ever!!!!! Also Chester Arthur had a cool mustache.
“He was arguably americas best president ever!!!!!”
Funny how America rewards its best president by not electing him to a second term. For some strange reason, they cared about the economy.
Anyone remember James Baker? The Bush/Baker team did not exactly treat Israel very nicely.
The good thing about his policy of not letting Israel defend themselves from direct missile attack during Gulf War I was that it reminded the rest of us that it is Hashem who is shomer Yisrael and not Tzahal or faulty Patriots.Now Joseph, in the spirit of Chanukah, let’s be pals at least for 8 days…. You clocked that one, but good…😁
ZionGate: Now that Chanukah has just completed, I propose that we continue this spirit indefinitely, despite our continued strong disagreements on many issues that we are sure to not agree with each other on any time soon. I see no contradiction between friendship and disagreement.
Winnie: The President was a friend of the Jews. The only “bad” thing he did for Israel was not provide loan guarantees. And America has no obligation to finance Israel. So that action was not wrong in any way. Nevertheless, America still gave Israel billions of dollars during his administration. And even if someone is a big Zionist, not giving another nation a loan guarantee isn’t the biggest aveira.
Regarding Israel not retaliating against Iraq for the scud missiles, that was a request from the US to Israel. Israel clearly could have declined and said it will exercise its natural and sovereign right of self-defense to hit back at Iraq. America couldn’t stop that. Instead Israel accepted, at its own choice, incentives (military and financial) from America for it to agree to allow the coalition forces led by the US to respond to all Iraqi attacks against it. That was Israel’s choice, one made freely that they alone are responsible for.
Regarding his not being re-elected, I would attribute that to Ross Perot’s third-party candidacy seeping away votes from Bush from many voters who would otherwise never vote for a Democrat. As far as the economy, it started picking up steam at the end of his term but it was too late for him to receive credit for it on election day.
Joseph, I recall things differently. Bush and Baker put tremendous pressure on Israel to make a peace deal in Madrid, expecting Israel to fall in line because they “saved” them from the Scuds. Holding back the loan guarantees as blackmail to stop settlement activity was a horrible way to treat an ally. Israel was not asking for a hand-out.
During the Gulf War, America put Israel in a very difficult place by requesting their restraint- it was clearly a request that could not be refused, not if they wanted to keep their relationship with their important ally.
Yes, he was a gentleman- more than could be said for other presidents, but one that was not a friend of Israel. That in itself doesn’t make him a bad president, but it does affect my (and probably other Jews’) opinion of him. I recall the Jewish frum vote going quite eagerly to Clinton in 1992, there was a lot of upset at this supposed friend of the Jews, as you call him.Winnie, you’re mistakenly conflating friend of Israel with friend of Jews. Was Bush a friend of Brazil? If his administration was, for some reason, tough with the Brazilian government (say regarding financial matters), does that by definition makes him no longer a friend of Brazilian-Americans or even of Brazilians, for that matter? (Not to conflate the mistaken notion that Israel is the state of the Jews.)
Any frum Jew who voted for Clinton in ’92 quickly regretted it.
For many Frum Jews, how someone relates to Israel and treats its people is very important, and is a barometer of how he relates to Jews in general. We know your attitude about Israel, Joseph, but most frum Jews outside of Satmar put Israel policy high on the list when judging politicians.
But I do agree with you about regretting voting for Clinton. And I didn’t like his approach to Oslo either.Joseph,
I’m for it… Thank you for responding.. I’ll work on softer language when disagreeing, and maybe you can do the same.ZionGate: +1
Winnie: I believe that most frum Jews voted for Bush in ’92, which would negate your assertion as to the priority the general Chareidi electorate place Israel on when voting for candidates, even though many of the more modern Orthodox Zionistic crowd did indeed vote for Clinton then because of the loan guarantees issues. I also believe you’re planning too much emphasis on how much the loan guarantees issues indicate a lack of care about Israel. It was only a financial matter; not a geopolitical or military/war issue. As to not responding to the scuds, I believe the community at most saw that the same way they saw Oslo — both were matters the Israelis agreed to.
Joseph, I can’t speak for all or most frum Jews, I am speaking, or should I say posting based on what I remember the feeling towards Bush Sr was among the people I knew, who were neither Satmar nor MO.
I think that you are forgetting that there are more than 6 million Jews living in Israel (somewhat less than that during Bush’s days), so policies that affect Israel and its safety very much affect Jews, and I would think that a Jew in America should feel that is important whether or not he is Zionist or Anti-Zionist, supports the Medina or does not.
And the loan guarantees were not just a financial matter- (they weren’t even a request for money directly), they were used as blackmail to achieve a geopolitical purpose.
Sometimes people – or nations- agree to something because they are pressured to, and the alternative is worse, but that doesn’t mean the one putting on the pressure is exonerated.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.