Erica Jong compares Obama to George W.

The desperation of the Clintonistas is reaching new depths. Yesterday, Erica Jong posted an hysterical screed on The Huffington Post, with the jumping-off point being Obama’s unfortunate use of “sweetie” to reporter Peggy Agar of WXYZ-TV in Michigan.

Despite his penchant for saying “sweetie” to shut women up, Barack Obama does seem more likable than Hillary Clinton. But so what?

The press loved frat boy George W. Bush and hated nerdy Al Gore eight years ago. And look what we got? Endless war, economic meltdown, torture, a bigoted Supreme Court, the destruction of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, a desecrated planet. Will Americans never learn that who they think is a “nice guy” is no reason to elect a president? Apparently not.

The lack of any substantive logic to get from “sweetie” to George W. is worthy of the Lee Atwater school of politics. I don’t understand how Clinton surrogates can tout change when their tactics are straight out of Karl Rove’s political handbook.

But as if that wasn’t bad enough, Ms. Jong continues:

So here we go again. NARAL loves the new boy on the block — even if HRC was there at its founding. So does John Edwards. And Ted Kennedy. The fact that Barack has little experience makes him the hot new ingénue, whereas Hillary is old like your mother.

The truth is we know about her — and we know very little about Obama. That alone makes her detractors scream: Get Out! Off the stage with you! Give us that hot new boy! Give us that sepia Brad Pitt! Old women are so over!

OK sweetie, we’ll step aside. Watch your own cauldron bubble. You’re in a heap of trouble — and you don’t even know it.

Oh no you didn’t. You did not just refer to the first African American presidential candidate as “boy”, not once but twice. And the veiled threat…how very unifying for the Democratic party.

Ms. Jong sounds like a spoiled kid who didn’t get her way. The entire post is a temper tantrum, ending with taking her ball and going home.

Who’s the REAL Nazi appeaser?

While giving a speech in honor of Israel’s 60th anniversary, President Bush ignored the “politics ends at the water’s edge” concept and likened diplomatic talks with Iran to Nazi appeasers. via The Huffington Post:

“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” said Bush, in what White House aides privately acknowledged was a reference to calls by Obama and other Democrats for the U.S. president to sit down for talks with leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

“We have heard this foolish delusion before,” Bush said in remarks to the Israeli Knesset. “As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American Senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

Of course that means Robert Gates is a Nazi appeaser too, since he has supported diplomatic relations with Iran.

The irony is inescapable, though. Who is Bush’s grandfather? From The Guardian:

George Bush’s grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator’s action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Apparently the Bush family is still under investigation for war crimes for Prescott’s business dealings. Papa George HW has also had criminal charges filed against him, in Iceland:

George H.W. Bush is charged of initiating a war of aggression against Panama in 1989, in breach of international law and the UN Charter, constituting a crime against the peace, and of ordering the kidnapping of Panama’s President Noriega in violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons. George H.W. Bush is furthermore charged for his command responsibility for the multiple war crimes committed by US forces in the Gulf War in 1991, including the policy of deliberately bombing civilian targets and the massacre of soldiers hors combat. His command responsibility for these crimes is equivalent to those of other heads of states who have been charged, indicted and convicted for international crimes, including torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. George H.W. Bush is also charged for inducing an uprising of Kurds and Shi’ites in Iraq during the Gulf War and then ordering US forces to withhold aid from those who risked the uprising, thus leaving unarmed uprising masses unprotected against Saddam Hussein’s brutal forces. By such policies, he knowingly facilitated the commission of crimes against humanity by Saddam Hussein. He is finally accused for conspiring in imposing deadly economic sanctions against the people of Iraq, with the intent to harm the well-being, health and lives of the Iraqi civilian population, with foreknowledge of the likely consequences and with the subsequent knowledge of the sanctions’ devastating consequences. Such conduct is considered to be a crime against humanity under international customary law. About one million persons are believed dead as a result of the economic sanctions, thereof half a million children below five years of age.

Three generations of war criminals. What else needs to be said?