The Alabama Moderate

Painting the Red State Purple.

  • Hit Counter

    • 41,277 hits
  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • January 2008
    M T W T F S S
    « Dec   Feb »
  • Rock the Vote, powered by Credo Mobile

    Yahoo! Avatars

  • Advertisements

Bush, Bombs, and Auschwitz

Posted by ALmod on January 11, 2008

Okay, I have to admit that I didn’t get much past the headline before I started giggling.  Fox really needs to proofread more:

“Bush Says U.S. Should Have Bombed WWII Death Camp During Holocaust Memorial Tour” 

My first thought was, “He wanted to bomb it when?”

But then I actually read the article.  It does get worse, and it starts in the first sentence.

“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.”

I had to wince, and it wasn’t due to the picture of the president wearing a yarmulke.  It might not have occurred to him that there were prisoners in that camp that we’d have likely wanted to rescue, and that the idea of killing the innocents so that the bad guys can do no more harm (if that was what he was implying) leaves me picturing the prez as Keyser Soze.  Not good.  Now, I’m sure that he wasn’t implying that we should have killed the many innocents who were imprisoned there, but he just doesn’t think before he speaks.


One Response to “Bush, Bombs, and Auschwitz”

  1. Lee P said


    I think you may be letting your dislike of President Bush cloud your reason. Here’s more on this story, from Haaretz:

    Upon viewing an aerial shot of Auschwitz, taken during the war by U.S. forces, Bush called the ruling not to bomb it “complex.” He then called over Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to discuss President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s decision, clearly pondering the options before rendering an opinion of his own, Shalev told the Associated Press.

    “We were talking about the often-discussed ‘Could the United States have done more by bombing the train tracks?'” Rice told reporters later aboard Air Force One. “And so we were just talking about the various explanations that had been given about why that might not have been done.”

    Rice did not say what those reasons were.

    Tom Segev, a leading Israeli scholar of the Holocaust, said the Bush comment, which appeared spontaneous, marked the first time an American president had made this acknowledgment.

    “It is clear now that the U.S. knew a lot about it,” he 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.”

    But Segev said the question of a bombing is not so clear cut, noting that “it wasn’t clear that the United States had the ability to carry out such an operation.”

    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.

    The question of whether the allies should have done more to stop the Nazi’s extermination of the Jews in the death camps was, I would imagine, just as Mr. Bush said: “complex.” This has been a long-running debate, and I’m sure that there are valid arguments on both sides. Why is is so bad that the President would conclude that we should have done more to stop the genocide once we knew about it?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: