We May Have to Destroy the Village to Liberate It...

[Doug]

JERUSALEM — President Bush had tears in his eyes during an hour-long tour of Israel's Holocaust memorial Friday and told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the U.S. should have bombed Auschwitz to halt the killing, the memorial's chairman said.

Read the rest here.

Yes, this idiot is the president of the United States.

[John Galt]

According to leading Holocaust scholars and Bill Clinton, Cyrus Vance, George McGovern- AND now, George W. Bush, the US should have bombed Auschwitz.

Thank goodness for Pres. George W. Bush.


http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/46345.html

Holocaust foundation: Bush is right--U.S. should have bombed Auschwitz

SOURCE: David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies (1-11-08)

A leading Holocaust research institute has praised President Bush for his statement that the United States “should have bombed” the Auschwitz death camp in 1944.

“The Roosevelt administration’s refusal to bomb Auschwitz was an appalling moral failure,” said Prof. David S. Wyman and Dr. Rafael Medoff, historians who have written extensively on the bombing issue. “President Bush is right--the United States should have, and could have, bombed the Auschwitz death camp and the railway lines leading to it.”

While visiting the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial, in Jerusalem, on Jan. 11, 2008, President Bush “viewed aerial photos of the Auschwitz death camp and called [Secretary of State Condoleeza] Rice over to discuss why the American government had decided against bombing the site, [Yad Vashem director Avner] Shalev said. ‘We should have bombed it,’ Bush said, according to Shalev.” (Associated Press, Jan. 11)

Dr. Medoff, who is director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, pointed out:

“The photographs that President Bush viewed were taken because U.S. planes flew right over Auschwitz in 1944, taking surveillance photos in preparation for bombing--not for bombing the gas chambers or crematoria, but for bombing German oil factories less than five miles away.

“The Roosevelt administration knew about the mass murder going on in Auschwitz but rejected proposals to bomb it on the grounds that bombing would have required a diversion of military resources. In fact, U.S. planes were already in the skies over Auschwitz. In one of the raids on the oil factories, stray U.S. bombs accidentally struck an SS barracks and part of the railway line leading into the death camp. But the gas chambers and crematoria were never targeted.

“The refusal to bomb Auschwitz was part of a broader policy by the Roosevelt administration to refrain from taking action to rescue or shelter Jewish refugees during the Holocaust. Tragically, the United States turned away from one of history’s most compelling moral challenges.”
OTHER AMERICAN LEADERS WHO HAVE SAID THAT
THE U.S. SHOULD HAVE BOMBED AUSCHWITZ:

* President Bill Clinton, in his remarks at the opening of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., on April 22, 1993, said: “For those of us here today representing the nations of the West, we must live forever with this knowledge--even as our fragmentary awareness of crimes grew into indisputable facts, far too little was done. Before the war even started, doors to liberty were shut and even after the United States and the Allies attacked Germany, rail lines to the camps within miles of militarily significant targets were left undisturbed.”


* U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance (Carter administration), visiting Yad Vashem on Feb. 16, 1977, “showed particular interest in a letter written by a deputy U.S. defence secretary stating that he would not allow the bombing of Auschwitz which had been called for to save the concentration camp inmates. ‘Even my country didn’t act,’ Vance said with emotion.” [Jerusalem Post, Feb. 17, 1977]


* U.S. Senator and 1972 Democratic Presidential Nominee George McGovern was one of the pilots who attacked German oil factories near Auschwitz in 1944. In an interview with Israel Television and the Wyman Institute on December 20, 2004, McGovern said “There is no question we should have attempted ... to go after Auschwitz. There was a pretty good chance we could have blasted those rail lines off the face of the earth, which would have interrupted the flow of people to those death chambers, and we had a pretty good chance of knocking out those gas ovens...Franklin Roosevelt was a great man and he was my political hero. But I think he made two great mistakes in World War Two.” One was the internment of Japanese-Americans; the other was the decision “not to go after Auschwitz ... God forgive us for that tragic miscalculation.”


* U.S. Senator Claiborne Pell (D-Rhode Island), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “The more you read [books about America’s response to the Holocaust] the more you realize that we did not bomb the railroad lines that brought the Jews into Auschwitz, the more you realize that we did not bomb the camps themselves and the incinerators--which we could have done...” [WHJJ Radio, Providence, RI, March 9, 1987]


* * *


ABOUT THE WYMAN INSTITUTE: The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, based in Washington, D.C., is a research and education institute focusing on America’s response to the Holocaust. It is named in honor of the eminent historian and author of the 1984 best-seller The Abandonment of the Jews, the most important and influential book concerning the U.S. response to the Nazi genocide.

The Institute’s Advisory Committee includes Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Elie Wiesel, Members of Congress, and other luminaries. Its Academic Council includes more than 50 leading professors of the Holocaust, American history, and Jewish history. The Institute’s Arts & Letters Council, chaired by Cynthia Ozick, includes prominent artists, writers, musicians, and filmmakers. (For a complete list, please visit www.WymanInstitute.org)

[Dardedar]

DAR
As Doug's reference notes, this is a complicated question that has been pondered for years. Galt cherry picks one opinion, David Wyman. Wyman clearly and blatantly distorts what his sources say. Looking everywhere for some support for Bush's claim he purports to have found four:

"AMERICAN LEADERS WHO HAVE SAID THAT
THE U.S. SHOULD HAVE BOMBED AUSCHWITZ"

Anyone with basic reading skills can see that only the last one, a senator from Rhode Island giving his opinion on a radio show 20 years ago, actually said the US should have "bombed Auschwitz." McGovern said we should have tried to go after Auschwitz, but refers especially the railroads. Clinton said: "too little was done." A fellow from the Carter administration "showed interest in a letter" and says: "Even my country didn’t act." Neither of them mention Auschwitz. That's the best Wyman has? As a person pointed out on a radio show today, Germany was really good at rebuilding bombed railroads. Often having them back in service in 24 hours. Also, aerial runs over Germany were extremely hazardous for the US with nearly 1/3 of the US pilots doing such runs ending up as casualties. Targets had to be strictly prioritized.

Rice says the context was that Bush was referring to bombing railroads, not the actual camp. There are no end of reasons showing Bush is an idiot but I am not sure musing about better ways to have slowed down the holocaust makes the list. There are a many other reasons why bombing the actual camp did not happen, as outlined in the Huffington article.

Then, the article quotes Bush as saying:

"I was most impressed that people in the face of horror and evil would not forsake their God. In the face of unspeakable crimes against humanity, brave souls _ young and old _ stood strong for what they believe," Bush said.

What utter nonsense. One of the most powerful arguments against the existence of God is the argument from evil and the holocaust perpetrated by the Christian Hitler and his Christian Nazi's stands as one of the most stark examples of an "omnipotent" God's powerlessness in the face of evil. Jews today are overwhelming secular and atheist. Last I checked, 90% of rabbis said they do not believe in a personal God. Theists believe in a personal God. So depending on how strictly you define atheist, most rabbi's can be considered atheist ("not theist"). Even conservative Jews (not the orthodox) have given up on a literal belief in Bible claims (Moses, Exodus etc.)

Darrel.
---------------------------
The 24th principle of the Nazi Party, from the infamous Twenty Five Points
(1920): "We demand the freedom of religion in the Reich so long as they do not
endanger the position of the state or adversely affect the moral standards of
the German race. As such the Party represents a positively Christian position
without binding itself to one particular faith. The Party opposes the
materialistic Jewish spirit within and beyond us and is convinced that a lasting
recovery of our people can only be achieved on the basis of common good before
personal gain."

[Doug]

DAR
As Doug's reference notes, this is a complicated question that has been pondered for years. Galt cherry picks one opinion, David Wyman. Wyman clearly and blatantly distorts what his sources say. Looking everywhere for some support for Bush's claim he purports to have found four:

"AMERICAN LEADERS WHO HAVE SAID THAT
THE U.S. SHOULD HAVE BOMBED AUSCHWITZ"

Anyone with basic reading skills can see that only the last one, a senator from Rhode Island giving his opinion on a radio show 20 years ago, actually said the US should have "bombed Auschwitz."

DOUG
Yes, the conservatives have to LIE constantly just to keep their heads above water (i.e., to keep from sinking under the weight of their own horseshit). Fortunately for them, Wretch Limbaugh has a large shovel and keeps them amply supplied. Sure, they have to self-lobotomize a little every day, but they think it's worth it.

[Abel]

Long time lurker, 1st time poster.

Okay Galt may be a pain in the A**, BUT Doug and Darrel, He IS SO RIGHT on this one. Doug- you posted without thinking- Galt busted you, BIG TIME.

Darrel- you look foolish defending Doug.

We may not love Bush, but he is not an idiot and he is sometimes right.

I know how you guys love religion so...

AND that is the mystery of faith- that people still believe in spite of evil and injustice. Kinda cool in my book.

See the story...
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/01/ ... 23258.html

Abel


Bush: US Should Have Acted on Auschwitz
By ARON HELLER 01.11.08, 9:05 PM ET

JERUSALEM -
A teary-eyed President Bush stopped in front of an aerial photo of Auschwitz on Friday at Israel's Holocaust memorial and said the U.S. should have sent bombers to prevent the extermination of Jews there.

Yad Vashem's chairman, Avner Shalev, quoted Bush as saying the U.S. should have "bombed it." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Bush referred to the train tracks leading to Auschwitz, not the camp itself, where between 1.1 million and 1.5 million people were killed by Nazi Germany.

The issue of bombing the Nazi death camps or the rail lines leading to them has been debated for years - and the lack of action was interpreted by some as a sign of Allied indifference.

The Allies had detailed reports about Auschwitz toward the end of World War II from escaped prisoners. But they chose not to bomb the camp, the rail lines, or any of the other Nazi death camps, preferring instead to focus all resources on the broader military effort.

Some experts note only late in the war did the United States have the capability to bomb the infamous camp in occupied Poland, and also faced a moral dilemma since such an operation could kill thousands of prisoners. Even Jewish leaders at the time struggled with the issue and many concluded that loss of innocent lives under such circumstances was justifiable.

Bush twice had tears in his eyes during an hour-long tour of the museum, said Shalev, who guided Bush through the exhibits.

Upon viewing an aerial shot of Auschwitz, taken during the war by U.S. forces, he said Bush called the decision not to bomb it "complex." He then called over Rice to discuss President Franklin D. Roosevelt's decision, clearly pondering the options before rendering an opinion of his own, Shalev told The Associated Press.

Shalev quoted Bush as asking Rice, "Why didn't Roosevelt bomb it?" He said Rice and Bush discussed the matter further and then the president delivered his verdict.

"We should have bombed it," Shalev, speaking in Hebrew, quoted Bush as saying.

Briefing reporters later on Air Force One, Rice said Bush was talking about the rail lines to the camp.

"We were talking about the often-discussed 'Could the United States have done more by bombing the train tracks?'" Rice said. "And so we were just talking about the various explanations that had been given about why that might not have been done.

"It was an exhibit about the train tracks. And so we were just talking about the various explanations because, you know, there are three or four different explanations about why the United States chose not to try to bomb the train tracks," she said.

Rice did not detail those reasons.

Later Friday night, asked about Rice's remarks to reporters, Shalev told the AP the president was not specific about what the Allies should have bombed.

Tom Segev, a leading Israeli scholar of the Holocaust, said Bush's reported comment, which appeared spontaneous, marked the first time a U.S. president had made this acknowledgment.

"It is clear now that the U.S. knew a lot about it," Segev said. "It's possible that bombing at least the railway to the camps may have saved the lives of the Jews of Hungary. They were the very last ones who were sent to Auschwitz at a time when everybody knew what was going on."

At the dedication of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington in 1993, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel famously asked, "Why weren't the railways leading to Birkenau bombed by allied bombers? As long as I live I will not understand that." Birkenau was the site of the main gas chambers and crematoriums at Auschwitz. UNESCO last year approved a name change from Auschwitz concentration camp to Auschwitz-Birkenau.

At that same dedication, former President Bill Clinton said that the West has to "live forever with this knowledge ... (that) far too little was done," and that "rail lines to the camps within miles of militarily significant targets were left undisturbed."

Segev said the question of a bombing was not so clear cut, noting that it wasn't certain the United States had the ability to carry out such an operation.

In a response to a request that U.S. forces bomb Auschwitz and the rail lines, John J. McCloy, Roosevelt's assistant secretary of war, laid out the U.S. rationale for inaction.

"Such an operation could be executed only by the diversion of considerable air support essential to the success of our forces now engaged in decisive operations elsewhere and would in any case be of such doubtful efficacy that it would not be warrant use of our resources," he wrote in an Aug. 14, 1944, letter.

Holocaust scholar Michael Berenbaum said the photo presentation at the museum, and Bush's reported comments there, do not reflect the difficulties in bombing Auschwitz.

"It would have been a much more complex decision than what is presumed here," said Berenbaum, who teaches at the American Jewish University in Los Angeles.

Berenbaum said the aerial photos that Bush saw at the museum were not developed from the negatives until 1977, nor were they taken purposely to depict Auschwitz. U.S. intelligence forces took them during a bombing campaign on a German chemical plant nearby, which they carried out in August 1944.

But he also said there is no question that had the Allies been interested, they could have bombed Auschwitz and saved lives. By the time the idea was raised in summer 1944, they could have bombed the camp and the railway tracks leading to it using air bases in Italy or, if they had wanted to earlier, from Soviet territory.

"The Americans flubbed it," Berenbaum said. "The bombing could have weakened the infrastructure and made it more difficult to kill with the efficacy with which they killed."

In an article Berenbaum wrote for Encyclopaedia Britannica, he quoted Wiesel, who was a prisoner at Buna-Monowitz, the slave-labor camp of Auschwitz, as saying that inmates were "filled with joy" over the August 1944 Allied bombing of an adjacent plant. "We were no longer afraid of death; at any rate, not of that death," he quoted Wiesel as saying.

The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies in Washington issued a statement praising Bush's reported remark.

"The refusal to bomb Auschwitz was part of a broader policy by the Roosevelt administration to refrain from taking action to rescue or shelter Jewish refugees during the Holocaust. Tragically, the United States turned away from one of history's most compelling moral challenges," said Rafael Medoff, the institute's director.

Eliezer Schweid, a professor of Jewish Thought at Israel's Hebrew University, said the question of a bombing is irrelevant in retrospect.

World Jewish leadership "was afraid to ask publicly" for the Allies to bomb the death camps, believing that would turn the conflict into a war for the Jews, Schweid said.

Bush was accompanied on his tour by a small party that included Rice, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Israeli President Shimon Peres.

At the compound, overlooking a forest on Jerusalem's outskirts, Bush visited a memorial to the 1.5 million Jewish children killed in the Holocaust, featuring six candles reflected 1.5 million times in a hall of mirrors.

At the site's Hall of Remembrance, he heard a cantor chant a Jewish prayer for the dead. There, Bush, wearing a yarmulke, placed a red, white and blue wreath on a stone slab that covers ashes of Holocaust victims taken from six extermination camps. He also lit a torch memorializing the victims.

"I was most impressed that people in the face of horror and evil would not forsake their God. In the face of unspeakable crimes against humanity, brave souls - young and old - stood strong for what they believe," Bush said.

"I wish as many people as possible would come to this place. It is a sobering reminder that evil exists, and a call that when evil exists we must resist it," he said.

The memorial was closed to the public and under heavy guard Friday, with armed soldiers standing atop some of the site's monuments and a police helicopter and surveillance blimp overhead.

It was Bush's second visit to the memorial. His first was in 1998, as governor of Texas. The last sitting U.S. president to visit was Clinton in 1994.

In the visitors' book, the president wrote simply, "God bless Israel, George Bush."

AP writers Diaa Hadid in Jerusalem and Lily Hindy in New York and AP investigative researcher Randy Herschaft in New York contributed to this report.

Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed

[Dardedar]

Long time lurker, 1st time poster.
Okay Galt may be a pain in the A**, BUT Doug and Darrel, He IS SO RIGHT on this one.

DAR
Do you have anything beyond mere assertion to support your claim? Your response does not engage any of the points I made above. Notice how my response engages and responds to points directly. The article you post is a rework of the very same material, even in the same order, as the article Doug posted. Apparently you didn't even read the article Doug posted. It's not even clear you read or understood the article you posted since it gives many good reasons rebutting your claim that anyone was "busted" on this controversial issue.

I am sure one of the most common conversations at the Holocaust memorial is about what we could have or should have done differently to stop or slow the death and destruction, so I really don't fault Bush for simply giving his uninformed opinion on this. Well, I take that back. Bush admits to killing 30,000 people just on the way into Iraq, so he does know quite a bit about mass death and destruction.

ABEL
...the mystery of faith- that people still believe in spite of evil and injustice. Kinda cool in my book.

DAR
Evil and injustice are standard arguments, evidence, against the existence of God. You find it "kinda cool" that people, via some "mystery of faith" believe in spite of the evidence? Aside from the fact that the claim is false, (the Holocaust probably created more Jewish atheists than any other and the Bible also creates a lot), I don't see how is a good thing if people were to continue to believe in superstitions even when they are given very good reasons to discard them.

And where is this "mystery" to faith? People believe in what makes them comfortable. When they want to believe something that is really comforting yet palpably absurd, they appeal to faith. No mystery.

"Faith is deciding to allow yourself to believe something your intellect would otherwise cause you to reject -- otherwise there's no need for faith."

Darrel.
------------------------------------
"Tell a devout Christian man that by eating frozen yogurt, he can become invisible - he requires evidence as much as anyone else" - but tell him that a certain book he keeps by his bed is written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for an eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he requires no evidence whatsoever."
--Sam Harris, "The End of Faith"

[Doug]

ABEL
...the mystery of faith- that people still believe in spite of evil and injustice. Kinda cool in my book.

DOUG
Well, as Darrel points out, it is decidedly UNcool that people believe the exact opposite of what they should believe given the evidence.

The main problem with belief by faith and not evidence is that once you throw out evidence as your determining factor regarding belief, you can believe ANYTHING. Hitler can believe that he should exterminate the Jews. Muslims can believe that they get 72 virgins in the afterlife if they die as martyrs. Jim Jones' people can believe that they will go to heaven if they drink the poisoned Kool-Aid. And so on.

The world has had enough tragedy and bloodshed based on unfounded beliefs. It is time to set aside faith and insist that people base their beliefs on evidence. Faith has done enough damage. It has ruined enough lives. It has destroyed enough families. It has brought enough tears. It has done enough for us to know it is a wrongheaded way to try to understand the world. People need to grow up, put away fairy tales, and start facing the world armed with reason, with shoulders back and head held high.

[Abel]

Come on- quit the dancing. This thread, started by Doug- claimed that Bush is an idiot because he thinks we should have bombed the railways leading to concentration camps, way back in WW2.

From the AP article I posted

" ...At the dedication of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington in 1993, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel famously asked, "Why weren't the railways leading to Birkenau bombed by allied bombers? As long as I live I will not understand that." Birkenau was the site of the main gas chambers and crematoriums at Auschwitz. UNESCO last year approved a name change from Auschwitz concentration camp to Auschwitz-Birkenau."

If Elie Wiesel thinks that allies should have bombed the camps (he was friggin there as a prisoner!!!!) REASONABLE people will decide that Bush was right. (at least this once)

Instead- you two, (as almost always) argue some minute point. Take some debate and logic classes. The point of Doug's thread was that Bush is an idiot.

I think hatred for Bush has made the Doug and Darrel tag team look like the idiots. Get a grip. You both look like asses and you make freethinkers look silly.

BTW- the religion stuff was an aside. So stick to the point dudes.

Abel

[Dardedar]

This thread, started by Doug- claimed that Bush is an idiot because he thinks we should have bombed the railways leading to concentration camps, way back in WW2.

DAR
No, that's not true. Please have the courtesy of being accurate. Doug's claim that Bush was an idiot (not an extraordinary claim there) was based upon Bush saying the camp should be bombed. If you would read my responses carefully and with a little reading comprehension you would see that I said I disagreed with his point.

ABEL
From the AP article I posted " ...At the dedication of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington in 1993, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel famously asked, "Why weren't the railways leading to Birkenau bombed by allied bombers? As long as I live I will not understand that." Birkenau was the site of the main gas chambers and crematoriums at Auschwitz. UNESCO last year approved a name change from Auschwitz concentration camp to Auschwitz-Birkenau."

If Elie Wiesel thinks that allies should have bombed the camps (he was friggin there as a prisoner!!!!)

DAR
Again you are sloppy. Weisel does not say the "allies should have bombed the camps." He specifically says the railways leading to the camp. That was not the claim Doug's article was putting forward but rather that Bush said the camps should be bombed. This is an important difference even if you would wish to pretend it is not. For one, if Mr. Wiesel was a prisoner in the camp being bombed he may not be here today to give his opinion which, as you quote above, was to bomb the railways leading to the camps. Read for comprehension.

ABEL
REASONABLE people will decide that Bush was right. (at least this once)

DAR
Right about bombing the railways or bombing the camps? Be specific.

ABEL
Instead- you two, (as almost always) argue some minute point.

DAR
Devil's in the details. Stop trying to hide behind a fog of sloppiness.

ABEL
Take some debate and logic classes.

DAR
Doug teaches logic classes. You might want to attend one and see how you do. His debate history can be viewed here. Stop with the insults and try paying closer attention.

D.

[Savonarola]

[to Doug] Take some debate and logic classes.

Ah, so you're the comic relief?

I would gladly set up a brand new section of the board where you could have a formal written debate with Doug if he'd agree to do so. Does this interest you?

[Doug]

This thread, started by Doug- claimed that Bush is an idiot because he thinks we should have bombed the railways leading to concentration camps, way back in WW2.

DAR
No, that's not true. Please have the courtesy of being accurate. Doug's claim that Bush was an idiot (not an extraordinary claim there) was based upon Bush saying the camp should be bombed. If you would read my responses carefully and with a little reading comprehension you would see that I said I disagreed with his point.

Elie Wiesel said: "Why weren't the railways leading to Birkenau bombed by allied bombers? As long as I live I will not understand that."

ABEL
If Elie Wiesel thinks that allies should have bombed the camps (he was friggin there as a prisoner!!!!)

DAR
Again you are sloppy. Weisel does not say the "allies should have bombed the camps." He specifically says the railways leading to the camp.

DOUG
Once again the GOP has to change what Bush said in order to try to keep him from looking like an idiot.

Maybe Abel will think a little about the name of this thread and see how the point (bomb camp v. bomb railway line) was made even in the first post.

If Bush had said "We should have bombed the railway line to the camp" no one would have paid attention. But he didn't say that. Instead, he said something stupid and he's rightly being ridiculed for it.

[Doug]

[to Doug] Take some debate and logic classes.

Ah, so you're the comic relief?

I would gladly set up a brand new section of the board where you could have a formal written debate with Doug if he'd agree to do so. Does this interest you?

DOUG
Abel, feel free to post a few topics that we might choose from if you want to do this.

[Hillwilllose]

Welcome Abel- Dr. Galt and I are happy to see some free, rational thought as well as some much needed diversity on this board.

From the Huffingtonpost.com article (whatever that is- please use a real source in the future????)

Bush twice had tears in his eyes during an hour-long tour of the museum, said Shalev, who guided Bush through the exhibits.

Upon viewing an aerial shot of Auschwitz, taken during the war by U.S. forces, he said Bush called the decision not to bomb it "complex." He then called over Rice to discuss President Franklin D. Roosevelt's decision, clearly pondering the options before rendering an opinion of his own, Shalev told The Associated Press.

Shalev quoted Bush as asking Rice, "Why didn't Roosevelt bomb it?" He said Rice and Bush discussed the matter further and then the president delivered his verdict.

"We should have bombed it," Shalev, speaking in Hebrew, quoted Bush as saying.

Briefing reporters later on Air Force One, Rice said Bush was talking about the rail lines to the camp.

"We were talking about the often-discussed 'Could the United States have done more by bombing the train tracks?'" Rice said. "And so we were just talking about the various explanations that had been given about why that might not have been done.

It was an exhibit about the train tracks.

And so we were just talking about the various explanations because, you know, there are three or four different explanations about why the United States chose not to try to bomb the train tracks," she said.

The president was speaking about bombing the rail lines, It was an exhibit about the train tracks. NOT the camps themselves. This quote is from the original article posted to start this silly thread. As Abel said, Yad Vashem's chairman, Avner Shalev supports Bush, and was glad to hear a US President agree that the US should have bombed the rail lines.

Now Darrel and Doug know this- they were caught being biased and hateful regarding our good President. Thanks Abel for standing up to them and pointing out the truth- which is rarely found here. On the debate challenge- I think wrestling a greased weasel would be easier than debating this bunch. I would suggest that you pass- since they don't seem to have met a fact that they have not twisted- unless of course you have some serious free time on you hands and you like teaching a pig to sing.

Hillwilllose

[Dardedar]

Welcome Abel- Dr. Galt and I are happy to see...

DAR
I am very glad they are here too. Welcome.

HILL
From the Huffingtonpost.com article (whatever that is- please use a real source in the future????)

DAR
He provided a direct link to the article in question at the Huffington post site. What is your point? Abel added another article that was a rehash of the very same material. Apparently he didn't read either article or he wouldn't have made such obviously blunders.

HILL
"We should have bombed it," Shalev, speaking in Hebrew, quoted Bush as saying.

Briefing reporters later on Air Force One, Rice said Bush was talking about the rail lines to the camp.

HILL adds:
The president was speaking about bombing the rail lines, It was an exhibit about the train tracks. NOT the camps themselves.

DAR
Now Hill steps up to pretend he can't read plain English too. What a bunch of jokers.

HILL
This quote is from the original article posted to start this silly thread.

DAR
Right, and this article quotes Shalev NOT supporting Rice's later briefing spin but rather saying Bush said to "bomb it." Who calls rail lines "it?"

If you would pay a little attention and read carefully you might notice these things. For instance, at the article in question the following appears directly underneath the photo. Pay attention:

"US President George W. Bush speaks after signing the guest book at the close of his visit in the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem, Friday, Jan. 11, 2008. President Bush had tears in his eyes during an hour-long tour of Israel's Holocaust memorial Friday and told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the U.S. should have bombed Auschwitz to halt the killing, the memorial's chairman said. (AP Photo/Jim Hollander, Pool)"

--LINK

What part of "bombed Auschwitz" are you having trouble grasping?

HILL
As Abel said, Yad Vashem's chairman, Avner Shalev supports Bush, and was glad to hear a US President agree that the US should have bombed the rail lines.

DAR
How ridiculous. There is no hint that "Shalev supports Bush" and nowhere does Shalev saying anything about rail lines. The report, quoted directly above, again, says: "[Bush] told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the U.S. should have bombed Auschwitz to halt the killing, the memorial's chairman [Avner Shalev] said."

Galt gets the smack down. Abel runs away with his tail between his legs and now you step up to try peddling the very same nonsense.

HILL
I think wrestling a greased weasel would be easier than debating this bunch.

DAR
Damn straight. You will have a hard time pulling little stunts like the above around here. But you are welcome to keep trying. It can be very instructive. I only got in this thread because it was so easy (and important) to point out the blatant dishonesty of the David Wyman article Galt posted. Wyman was so clearly lying about what Clinton, Cyrus Vance and McGovern said. It is interesting to note that even as dishonest as that article was it didn't try the tactic you guys are using to defend Bush. It didn't deny that Bush said to bomb Auschwitz. Galt's article just claimed, incorrectly, to have found four others who supposedly said to bomb Auschwitz.

Remember this claim?

"AMERICAN LEADERS WHO HAVE SAID THAT
THE U.S. SHOULD HAVE BOMBED AUSCHWITZ"

Maybe if Galt had read his article more carefully he would have caught the boo.

I was hoping Abel would stick around and give us some good debate lessons. Looks like he ran. Shoot.

Darrel.

[Doug]

President Bush had tears in his eyes during an hour-long tour of Israel's Holocaust memorial Friday and told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the U.S. should have bombed Auschwitz to halt the killing, the memorial's chairman said. (AP Photo/Jim Hollander, Pool)"

The president was speaking about bombing the rail lines, It was an exhibit about the train tracks. NOT the camps themselves.

DOUG
The quotation is probably too complex for poor GOP-loving Hillwilllose.

Let's pare it down:

President Bush...told...Rice that the U.S. should have bombed Auschwitz...

Maybe now Hillwilllose can understand simple English.

And it really gets hilarious:

Now Darrel and Doug know this- they were caught being biased and hateful regarding our good President.

Biased and hateful against the worst president in U.S. history, who has sent thousands to die in a NEEDLESS war, a war that he LIED us into? It is not bias or hate--it is the truth.

If you aren't able to handle the truth, you should leave this forum. Here, truth reigns. That's why it is so easy to roast you to a crisp. You start from a position that is indefensible because it is so demonstrably false.

[John Galt]

Welcome Abel, it is nice to see a bit of sanity on this forum. I have been the only sane voice here for months. Doug and Darrel are pretty predictable, I must admit they're growing on me in an odd way. I suspect that they will be conservative Republicans if I post a bit more here.

Glad to hear that Doug is a teacher. I guess those who can do...

Darrel and Doug- You guys split hairs like I have never seen. The silly Huffington Post makes it clear that the rail lines were the issue. But I suspect that bombing the camps would have saved many more lives than lost in the bombing. In any event- you have both twisted the facts to make the President look like a fool- and you know it- you both protest too much.

Your "Chicken Little" attitude towards a slight, natural warming of a fraction of a degree (that peaked in 1998) is amusing. Man-made global warming is a hoax of historic proportions and many, many smart people disagree with Algore and his band of fools- it is certainly not settled science. To say that it is, reflects your immaturity and intellectual shortcomings.

It is juvenile and shows your pettiness to think that Pres. Bush is an idiot. If you are soooooo much smarter- why is he richer than you and the President?

BTW, the surge is working and Iraq is getting their act in gear. I'm proud of our brave soldiers, airmen and marines.

Abel- take these "greased weasels" on- it won't be difficult.

John Galt

[Savonarola]

Glad to hear that Doug is a teacher. I guess those who can do...

Galt,

I'm a teacher.

I teach chemistry. For years I worked in a lab manufacturing testing solutions and laboratory reagents. I've performed public demonstrations in numerous venues. I still spend some time in the lab. I teach now because I want to teach. I want to teach because I place a high value on education, and it so happens that my skills are even better suited toward teaching than they are toward laboratory work.

But I kept coming back to that lab job for ten years without being fired even though I can't, huh? The only reason I didn't continue, Holmes, was that I care so much about the education of the populace. I know that that's a concept that's foreign to you, but that's exactly why my job is important: I make sure that the willfully ignorant like you become a dying breed.

Here's where you'd be eating crow, but I doubt you understand.


ETA: Let me add that I'll be happy to set up a thread for you to debate Doug as well, pending his approval. If you really believe that he "can't" and that taking him on "won't be difficult," then there's no reason to run away...

[Dardedar]

I have been the only sane voice here for months.

DAR
Actually two months. Your first post was Nov 14. I encourage anyone interested to pop "galt" into our search engine and read the material you have posted. Your record is quite... how shall I put this nicely... consistent.

GALT
Doug and Darrel are pretty predictable,...

DAR
Right, you set, we spike. Repeat.

GALT
I suspect that they will be conservative Republicans if I post a bit more here.

DAR
Oh I would definitely become a conservative Republican, if you made persuasive arguments for that position. When are you going to start doing that? Or does name calling, constant insults and stereotyping everyone as a socialist usually work pretty well for making your positions look good?

GALT
Glad to hear that Doug is a teacher. I guess those who can do...

DAR
There's an original one. Doug's a philosopher. Philosophy is usually defined as the "Love and pursuit of wisdom." Well that's silly, who would want to spend their time pursuing wisdom when they could be making money?

GALT
The silly Huffington Post makes it clear that the rail lines were the issue.

DAR
Actually, it says Bush said the "U.S. should have bombed Auschwitz." It also has Rice's apologetic regarding the rail lines. But everyone knows it is her job to clean up after Bush's intellectually messes. And no one seems to be buying that story. You didn't and the guy who wrote the article you posted didn't buy it either. Let's start by looking at the title of the article you posted:

Holocaust foundation: Bush is right--U.S. should have bombed Auschwitz

And the summary:

"A leading Holocaust research institute has praised President Bush for his statement that the United States “should have bombed” the Auschwitz death camp in 1944."

Hmmm... it says "death camp." That sounds pretty specific. Getting clearer Galt?

Now, if there was any question that the author of your article understood that Bush said bomb, directly, the Auschwitz death camp, the following leaves now doubt because he refers to the railway lines separately. From your article:

“The Roosevelt administration’s refusal to bomb Auschwitz was an appalling moral failure,” said Prof. David S. Wyman and Dr. Rafael Medoff, historians who have written extensively on the bombing issue. “President Bush is right--the United States should have, and could have, bombed the Auschwitz death camp and the railway lines leading to it.”

Is that clear enough for you Galt?

I can do better. Lets make the rubble bounce while we are at it. To settle the matter, let me quote you and the very first sentence you posted in this thread, then I'll stop beating you to a pulp on this (bold is yours):

"According to leading Holocaust scholars and Bill Clinton, Cyrus Vance, George McGovern- AND now, George W. Bush, the US should have bombed Auschwitz."

Tsk tsk. Looks like Galt shot himself in both feet (again).

That was fun. So glad you're here.

Now, regarding your global warming noises. I really can't take you seriously and doubt even believe such nonsense. I happen to know something about the subject and am interested in having serious discussions for the purpose of learning more. Nothing you have said has risen even close to that level and this is unfortunate. You apparently just want to troll for insults. If you have any anti-global warming argument that you think is valid or persuasive, perhaps find the courage to post it in a new thread and I'll respond. If you find one I haven't heard before you get a star.

GALT
Abel- take these "greased weasels" on- it won't be difficult.

DAR
Yes, Abel, please don't run away. Maybe you will have better luck on a different subject.

D.

[Doug]

Welcome Abel, it is nice to see a bit of sanity on this forum. I have been the only sane voice here for months. Doug and Darrel are pretty predictable, I must admit they're growing on me in an odd way. I suspect that they will be conservative Republicans if I post a bit more here.

DOUG
Your predictive abilities seem to lack accuracy.

Glad to hear that Doug is a teacher. I guess those who can do...

DOUG
Right. I guess you know nothing about academia. You're a Republican, of course you don't understand education. You hate it. It makes Democrats.

Darrel and Doug- You guys split hairs like I have never seen. The silly Huffington Post makes it clear that the rail lines were the issue.

DOUG
As in fiction, show, don't just say. Show where it makes this clear. You are long on assertion and short on evidence. Typical.

But I suspect that bombing the camps would have saved many more lives than lost in the bombing. In any event- you have both twisted the facts to make the President look like a fool- and you know it- you both protest too much.

DOUG
Oh, so we proved it so much we are wrong? Riiiight. And Gates is so rich he is poor. And Bush is such an idiot he's a genius. No wonder you love Limbaugh. You have the standard upside-down GOP thinking he teaches.

If we distorted the facts, SHOW THIS. Let's see more than just empty claims from you.

Your "Chicken Little" attitude towards a slight, natural warming of a fraction of a degree (that peaked in 1998) is amusing. Man-made global warming is a hoax of historic proportions and many, many smart people disagree with Algore and his band of fools- it is certainly not settled science. To say that it is, reflects your immaturity and intellectual shortcomings.

DOUG
OK, care to try to show that your claims are true? I thought not.

It is juvenile and shows your pettiness to think that Pres. Bush is an idiot. If you are soooooo much smarter- why is he richer than you and the President?

DOUG
You must think Jesus was an idiot because he was neither rich nor a political leader in his day. Gee, are you an atheist too?

BTW, the surge is working and Iraq is getting their act in gear. I'm proud of our brave soldiers, airmen and marines.

DOUG
Right. Proud that 25% of our women in uniform are sexually assaulted by fellow American soldiers? I'm not.

And if the surge is working, why is it that its stated purpose, political reconciliation among the Iraqis, is nowhere on the horizon?

Abel- take these "greased weasels" on- it won't be difficult.

It's more than you can do. Maybe you need to get some help.

[Dardedar]

DAR
Hey, where did our debate coaches go?

<<snort>>