Arab's over Israel's offers of assistance
 

It is hard not to view the State Department's reticence over accepting Israel's offers of assistance to hurricane victims and victims of Arab terror on the one hand, and its enthusiastic playing up of assistance from Arab states on the other...
The most disturbing aspect of this episode is that it shows clearly the enduring power of the darker side of America. There is the great America that stands as a beacon of freedom and democracy for the whole world. This is the America that is willing to send its forces throughout the world to defend America and bring freedom to millions who suffer under the yoke of tyranny
Entire article

yes, and we turned the German help away too. made them wait along with the swedish and the swiss. on the other hand the mexicano army is marching on Alamo as we speak. :)

A lot of the very strict Christian groups are pointing to our "turning away of Israel" as prophetic. Their pullout from Gaza was in part from pressure we put on the situation, and of course there are those that are saying that God's wrath is being poured out because of it.
There's no doubt that we want to be viewed differently by the Arab states in the region, and not such a total supporter of Israel, but this does seem a little to obvious.
Sometimes when you cater to people their sense is that your just pathetic. It's getting to the point now where our alliance with the Saudi royals is building a wall to the other states in the region.
Nobody in State seems to take the tenants of Islam seriously, but we will never fit in over there, no mater what we do.

i think you're right (or the article is) to a point. there seems to be a little bit of israel phobia but i don't think that was all the reason. i think, by truning dire help from germans and others at the same time shows either un-preperdness or some kind of egotistical brain fart or some racial motivivation. regrdless it definately shows lack of compassion on the part of the prez and gang.

also, we (the western world) actually went over pretty well in pre invasion Irq. overall.

I am very disgusted how US buddy-buddies to KSA. Overall they are the reason for this "Islamic revolution" due to Wahabism.

I understand there's a pretty long list of countries that we've refused aid from. Doesn't seem too neighborly or diplomatic. After all the times we've given aid, couldn't we just be humble for a while and gratefully accept the stuff? We could put the Red Cross and Salvation Army in charge of distributing the stuff.

I heard Matt Drudge the other night pooh - poohing the whole thing, saying, "It's hot down there, what do they need blankets for!" I never realized what a douche-bag he is. He was saying the left is dissappointed that the death toll is much lower than initially feared, that now they can't use it as such an issue.

Yeah, it's hot now Matt, but a lot of these folks lost all their blankets, and a lotta folks sleep under at least one blanket.

Matt Drudge: :pukeface:

You hate Matt Drudge becasue he tells everyone about all the things the lefty press tries to hide....and thats a lot of stuff.

Matt Drudge has been proven time and time again as an internet sensationalist with no more credability than the National Enquirer. Like them, even he gets a story right every now and then, but fact checking has not been his strong point. I expect a Dan Rather comment inserted here. Although not a big fan, he did get more things right than wrong, which is not something one could substantiate about our fat little internet friend Matt. Now I can understand why one might enjoy reading Drudge; he's entertaining. But that's what it is, entertainment. He is no more a credible news source than Mother Jones (which I find quite entertaining).

Well he was one of the people who helped bring to common knowledge what the bloggers got on Dan Rather.........and if you dig deep enough you are going to find any media outlet gets things wrong....TV, radio, newpaper, magazines...

Time, The Washington Post, and New York Times, not to mention NBC's Dateline, and the all famous Dan Rather report on 60 Minutes...these all had some very high profile falsehoods that were TOP stories....

Does that render all of them as unreliable in your mind too? are they equal to the National Enquirer? Just curious. becasue by your set of standards your answer should be yes.

I said I hate Matt Drudge? I don't want to have a beer with him but it's not that strong, just that I find him to be a sensationalist and a provocateur.

Check out what I said: he was saying lefties were disappointed that the death toll wasn't higher. Which lefties did he see in front of the federal bldg. demonstrating for a recount of the number of dead? Which lefties did he hear on the radio whining that the death toll was not nearly high enough?

People were freaked and thought it would be high. I guessed 5 to 10 thousand. Drudge is making the absurd leap that people who were claiming that Bush and crew botched the federal response are now disappointed that the number isn't higher -- as if they had political capital at stake. It's an outrageous accusation and made just to try to stir up a $h!t storm.

The guy's not worth hating.....

Funny....I see those claims by watching TV.....and they were spot on accurate when you listen to what he said. They weren't made in those exact words but thats exactly what they were saying.

I guess it's the percentages that really tell the tale. Yeah, a lot of what have been historically considered "credible" news sources have made some pretty large mistakes. By and large they are accurate in their reporting. I don't think you can compare a source that nails it 95% (hypothetical number) of the time to a Matt Drudge or an Art Bell (who was a lot of fun when he was around) who is just as likely to be dead wrong about something as they are right. I think that's what determines credibility, and that is something that has to be earned over time. Derrick Lee still strikes out, but he does it a hell of a lot less than Corey Patterson. They're both swinging a bat, just one is consistently more dependable at delivering favorable results. It's the same thing with Drudge. He's right on some things, and can be days ahead of traditional news sources, but I would not feel comfortable putting a lot of stock in something he reports until it is verified by other news sources.

Many of those news sources have major agendas.....

Remember the fabricated stories that got those Big name liberal pubs in trouble...

and of course there was Rathergate...they verified those things real well didn't they?

Pot and Kettle subject....

Drudge may get something wrong on occaison...big deal...so do many other sources who supposedly vet their stories...and didn't get held to the same level of accountibility? There was a lot of lefties defending Dan Rathers storie even though it was 100% fabricated by someone with an axe to grind.

Bones,,,hahha, you are handling the dualling foursome of the far left pretty well my son ! one on four,,,,yea, I love them odds,,,well, when you have the truth on your side,,,,,

CMAC, you seem to have different standards for journalists depending on which side of the fence they are on....tsk, tsk, tsk,,,

Ok, now Im back to viewing, ZORO in a blade fight with four inept mouskateers....