RSS
Using PayPal
Sharansky Must Want Invite to Spring Fling at White House
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Wednesday, Apr 26 2006, 7:34AM
Natan Sharansky must be sad that April has rolled along and Dubya has not invited him over to the Oval Office for lunch and a chat.
So, Sharansky has written as obseqious a letter to the President as one can imagine via the Wall Street Journal.
It turns out, however, that the way Sharansky describes Bush in his opener is pretty accurate:
There are two distinct marks of a dissident. First, dissidents are fired by ideas and stay true to them no matter the consequences. Second, they generally believe that betraying those ideas would constitute the greatest of moral failures. Give up, they say to themselves, and evil will triumph. Stand firm, and they can give hope to others and help change the world.Political leaders make the rarest of dissidents. In a democracy, a leader's lifeline is the electorate's pulse. Failure to be in tune with public sentiment can cripple any administration and undermine any political agenda. Moreover, democratic leaders, for whom compromise is critical to effective governance, hardly ever see any issue in Manichaean terms. In their world, nearly everything is colored in shades of gray.
That is why President George W. Bush is such an exception. He is a man fired by a deep belief in the universal appeal of freedom, its transformative power, and its critical connection to international peace and stability. Even the fiercest critics of these ideas would surely admit that Mr. Bush has championed them both before and after his re-election, both when he was riding high in the polls and now that his popularity has plummeted, when criticism has come from longstanding opponents and from erstwhile supporters.
With a dogged determination that any dissident can appreciate, Mr. Bush, faced with overwhelming opposition, stands his ideological ground, motivated in large measure by what appears to be a refusal to countenance moral failure.
Yes, the President is such a dissident that he is on the basis of principle seemingly willing to try and permanently change the system of checks and balances that has helped make this nation a great democracy.
Mr. Sharansky -- this is for you -- please note that a dissident President as you have described is not a President but presumes to be a monarch.
You are not celebrating democracy in your article -- you are calling for the type of zealotry that breeds chaos and which, if Bush were to succeed in the kind of plan you call for, would cause this nation's collapse.
-- Steve Clemons
Ed. Note: Thanks to BB for the WSJ link.
« Previous Article - Big Personnel Moves in Progressive Foreign Policy Circles» Next Article - European Parliament Greens Go After Europe's CIA Collaborators
How can "the decider" be a dissident? It just doesn't make sense.
As if Bush formulates his own policies much less his own opinions on peace and freedom. Sharansky is complimenting his fellow Neo-Con Zionist traitors and begging them not to give up on their failed policies. Someone who "stand his ideological ground" when they are flat out wrong and works against the best interests of this country and its people, is a stubborn moron at best, a treasonous scumbag at worst. Bush has two choices: he is either a criminally incompetant fool or a traitor. I'll take either answer if it means his demise as President of the United States.
Sharansky needs a thesarus: one that distinguishes dissident from fanatic, zealot, obsessive. See also delusions of grandeur.
"He is a man fired by a deep belief in the universal appeal of freedom..."
Yes, this is the correct constuction.
So many simply say that "W believes in democracy." Or "W believes in freedom."
Wrong. W believes in "the appeal" of these things. He is a propagandist, willing to abuse freedom and democracy as he uses their appeal to delude no one but his own countrymen. A connsumate heel and, yes, traitor.
Sharansky goes far, far afield however, saying "Even the fiercest critics of these ideas would surely admit that Mr. Bush has championed them..."
What a load! Sharansky, you are a manipulator with the ugliest of them. Coward! Name these critics of freedom and "its transformative power."
No, no one who could proprely be considered a "critic" of Mr. Bush would concede for a moment that the man has championed freedom.
Quite the opposite -- W. indeed seems to have a real loathing of both freedom and democracy.
Sharansky is a sycophantic embarrassment.I have watched his nauseating suckup to Bushit performance on cspan espousing obvious platitudes about democracy, and wondered at the time, what caused bubbly approbation of this guy by the masses. Talk about over rated non entitys, this guy personifys it. This may be one source of Bush's dangerous messianic buffoonery, and encourages continuance.But hey, Bush doesn't read so no damage.
Ah, Freedom!
Freedom to sell off public lands, minerals, and forests. Freedom to bomb and attack at will. Freedom to pollute. Gotta love it.
"Fired by a deep belief in the universal appeal of freedom..."
This is the same Bush who constantly muses that life would be so much easier if he was a Dictator? The same Bush who has asserted a constitutional prerogative to torture? To seize without arrest? To hold without trial? To spy on Americans without warrants? To arrest journalists? Who sets up First Amendment zones which are little more than temporary cattle pens? Who brooks no dissent? Who burns CIA agents as revenge upon their loved ones? Who lies to Americans? Who opposed elections in Iraq until he had absolutely no choice? Who defrauded two Presidential elections?
Yeah. Bush loves freedom. Shot and killed, eviscerated, stuffed and mounted as a trophy in his living room.
"With a dogged determination that any dissident can appreciate, Mr. Bush, faced with overwhelming opposition, stands his ideological ground, motivated in large measure by what appears to be a refusal to countenance moral failure."
Anyone that can lower himself to the level of writing such horseshit ought to be immediately euthanized.
Thanks for revealing what fraud Sharansky is in the best way possible--using his own words. Sharansky has made a recent career of talking about "human rights"; the problem is his definition only fits his political agenda. What a huckster.
All I have ever gotten out of Sharansky's writing
is that he emerged from prison with some kind of twisted morality that mostly is about revenge on the world for the powerlessness he suffered...seems to be a common theme in some of the neo's and their supporters.
Mwa-ha-ha. Can't help but think of Vladimir Bukovsky, another survivor of the Soviet Gulags.
I suppose "Torture's Long Shadow" is to "Dissident President" what "An Inconvenient Truth" is to "State of Fear"...
Strong words in conclusion, but, alas, terribly, terribly accurate.
Here's a wild interpretation of Shransky's piece-- Might it be one of those devastatingly subtle slaps that u don't realize u've been done in? Might Shransky be saying really, an extreme anything, including a 'dissident' is NOT good. And the case Sharansky gives is this extreme dissident (dubbya) is willing to " ... permanently change the system of checks and balances that has HELPED MAKE THIS NATION A GREAT DEMOCRACY." Might not this last sentence be interpreted to say that dubbya would "give up" democracy,(i.e. dismantle democracy) having gone 'overboard' as a dissident?
joe
Huummm... I just read Zbigniew Brzezinski's "Do Not Attack Iran" in the International Herald Tribune...Bush better start reading some Americans instead of the democracy pretenders like Sharansky..
If it wasn't for all the dead people another Bush war would cause I would say go ahead idiot, do it again...it would bring on the revolt we need here to clean up our own country...and if it didn't...I hear New Zealand is nice.
No Joe...Sharansky is a true zealot.. a cultist, whatever you want to call those types...read some of his screeds in the Israeli papers if you want to get the true drift in this guy's mind.
the only freedom appealing universally to george w. ush is that which appeals to any recidivist criminal. it's the freedom to do whatever he chooses while contenting himself with some banal sophistry as to justification, the public orchestration of which has become so inconveient that, once dispensed with entirely "when he was riding high", it has become stark in its boorish ineptitude as of late.
Hah!..I can't just resist adding to Steve's opinion of this guy.
I give you yet another example of the "up is down", utterly stupid, contridicting yourself with every word you utter,illogical mombo jumbo of zealots like Sharansky and his ilk..
The WP review of his positions in his book:
Sharansky bases his case on two central arguments, both of them dubious. The first is that free societies are always peaceful. "Since all democratic societies strive for peace," he writes, "there is no such thing as a belligerent democracy." Open public debate, he continues, provides the average voter with good information about the unnecessary costs of reckless warmongering. In contrast, the leaders of what Sharansky calls "fear societies," such as the Soviet Union and the Palestinian Authority, exaggerate foreign threats to justify repression at home. Outsiders may fall prey to the illusion that the people in "fear societies" (read: Hamas supporters) are more warlike than their leaders (read: Arafat), and therefore conclude that concessions must be made to keep in power the embattled "moderates" who can resist violent demands from their angry "street." In fact, Sharansky contends, the people get whipped into a frenzy only because of the doubletalk of their leaders, and the only antidote is to promote free speech and democracy."
Yep, democracies aren't belligerent..HAH!
Yep, ""fear societies," such as the Soviet Union and the Palestinian Authority, exaggerate foreign threats to justify repression" ..not like Israel and the Isrmerica of course....HAH!
I have to have a bottle of asprin every time I even see this nitwit's name...I have yet to figure out why anyone would listen to absolute illogical garbage much less take him seriously.
I'm a little hesitant to jump into a conversation in which each speaker sounds a little more extreme, and a little more vitriolic - and each ratifies the other in the name of dissent. But that's the point.
Natan Sharansky is a tragic figure, and he is possessed of a tragic flaw - the characteristic that made him great is now his undoing. He is single-minded, absolutely devoted to the principles of freedom and democracy, and tenacious in their pursuit. His zealotry, is we term it so, was forged in the intense heat of a totalitarian society. He has paid a far greater price for his convictions, I suspect, than any of us posting to this board, and done more to advance their cause.
These are virtues in a dissident, liabilities in an executive. Let me put that differently. It is courageous for an individual to advocate these notions in an uncompromising manner, and in so doing, inspire others to embrace them; it is disastrous for a leader to impose these ideas from above, and thereby inspire others to oppose them.
So that's why I took the time to post. Because a chorus of scorn and bile does little, but a single dissenting voice can do a great deal.
could we, just once, not listen to the advice given to us by the stooges of a foreign nation. rather, let's revisit Washington's farewell address to congress. after all, this is what made us what we once were.
nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded...
due to a leaking pipe in my building, i had to spend this morning / early afternoon at home, waiting for the plumber. i happened to tune in to c-span, only to witness the pathetic spectacle of another group of war-mongers advocating HR. 282, what they call the "Iran freedom support act". the usual suspects were all present (Lantos, Engel, Cantor, Ros-Lehtinen etc.), slobbering all over themselves, advocating American involvement in yet another regime-change, obsequiously spewing Israeli propaganda. The vote was overwhelming, 397-21 in favor...(excuse me, i now have to go and throw up)
Baffeled...how long till Thomas will have the bill details up..is it up now..?
I would like to see who voted against it so I can call and thank them.
i haven't found a roll call report yet, but here's a list of the co-sponsors (360!):
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:21:./temp/~bdi7mY:@@@P
the only 3 housemembers i saw speaking in opposition to it were: Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Earl Blumenauer. there may have been others, before i tuned in.
Here is at least one in opposition:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r109:1:./temp/~r109MktjRd::
Have other countries cried "freedom!" after terrorist attacks? Bush has used the word "freedom" ad nauseum. It's not "ideological ground" he holds. It's a NeoCon-job, a Joseph Goebbels ploy, a saturation of the national dialog "to kind of catapult the propaganda." The "Long War" is the Cold War revisited, remade. It's an excuse for grand Defense spending for years to come. For that open, never-ending paranoia that can be turned into an excuse for all manner of spending and actions like militarizing police tactics, trimming our Bill of Rights, bugging our phone calls, classifying documents, putting cameras all over an Alaskan town of a few hundred people. This is a political justification for the future of the Republican Party, for fear-mongering arguments the spectrum of which includes and invites the farthest right-wing. It's a self-generating constant dodge from problems like pollution, worker's rights and safety, consumer rights, health care...does anyone think that we'll ever get around to light pollution in our lifetime? When is a "War on Terror," a "Long War" over? There will always be terrorists or those talking of radical action. Therefore the changes made in the name of this "war" are permanent. We've been sold out, cheated, duped by a political animal, not a statesman, a leader. A leader would have our ports secure, airline cargo secure by NOW five years after the attacks. He would amend, if necessary, the F.I.S.A. court to handle its task and preserve our rights - to the best of his ability. Maintaining our rights would be as important as our security and he would take it as a given that explanations were expected of him when altering those rights. A political animal would act as if he had a mandate right after a contested election. He'd cry "freedom!," a nebulous term, not "security!," definable and measurable. He'd take us into pre-emptive war with decades of obligation, take our rights by stealth. He would rebuild the shape, tone and outlook of the seventy years of Cold War that we were so thankful to be done with.
Ugh! What a pathetic groveling midget. Don't these neo-con-fascists realize how they come across? Very sad. The picture of this mad Zionist and his idol, the decider-in-chief, reminded me of that utterly self assured manipulative clown in "The Princess Bride" who was finally out-tricked by the Farm Boy and drank his own poison. We need a Farm Boy in America, someone who sees it as it is and without too many words steers us out of the Middle East on a ship of justice and honesty.
After you got us out of the Middle East, how would you keep them from flying planes into our ofice buildings?
Reader Comments (28) - post a comment